Its not about that, its about algorithms designed to present you with things that enrage you. Enclosing you in filter bubbles. Since enabling raw emotions is what keeps retention. Which turns into clicks and revenue + tracking data that can be sold to third parties.
What a load of crap.
There never was anything even close to a consensus among scientists about global cooling. I\m sick and tired hearing that argument being brought up time after time.
Yeah! lets make that piece of land into an unlivable wasteland as well. Lobbying oil companies must really know the best! We really need to pump all that oil, because we haven't got enough C02 yet./s
Apparently counterintuitively wooden beams handle fire better than steel beams. In a normal fire of 750-1000 degrees celcius the steel will lose 90% structural integrity while wood only 25% after 30min. This means the steel beam will have collapsed long before its wooden counterpart has.
The headline in that article does not say the same thing as the article itself. So what you believe is incorrect.
While the treaty was signed in 1997, the base year for reduction calculations was 1990. Making the first graph in the article, eh missleading.
To quote a comment to that article:
Russ R.
April 5, 2013 at 2:20 pm
You gotta read beyond the headline.
First: 5.2% was a weighted average collective target for all participating developed nations. The US target was 7%.
“The 5.2% reduction in total developed country emissions will be realized through national reductions of 8% by Switzerland, many Central and East European states, and the European Union (the EU will achieve its target by distributing differing reduction rates to its member states); 7% by the US; and 6% by Canada, Hungary, Japan, and Poland. Russia, New Zealand, and Ukraine are to stabilize their emissions, while Norway may increase emissions by up to 1%, Australia by up to 8%, and Iceland 10%.”
Second, while the treaty was signed in 1997, the base year for reduction calculations was 1990 (or 1995 for certain GHGs).
“The agreement aims to lower overall emissions from a group of six greenhouse gases by 2008-12, calculated as an average over these five years. Cuts in the three most important gases – carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20) – will be measured against a base year of 1990. Cuts in three long-lived industrial gases – hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) – can be measured against either a 1990 or 1995 baseline. If compared to expected emissions levels for the year 2000, the total reductions required by the Protocol will actually be about 10%; this is because many industrialized countries have not succeeded in meeting their earlier non-binding aim of returning their emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000, and their emissions have in fact risen since 1990. Compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without emissions-control measures, the Protocol target represents a 30% cut. The Protocol should therefore send a powerful signal to business that it needs to accelerate the delivery of climate-friendly products and services.”
So, if I’m going to nitpick details 7% below 1990 level is a bigger target than 5.2% below 1997 levels.
But that doesn’t take away from the main point that the US has indeed reduced emissions substantially in the last 5 years, thanks to a shale gas boom and an economic bust.
They should stop producing oil and natural gas first. Buying a Tesla with money you made selling oil does nothing for the globe.
I don't agree. In a perfect rational world oil & coal energy should be heavily taxed by global carbon tax for example. Then let the shift to greener & more efficient use of energy be solved by the heavy market forces stemming from that.
But that kind of global cooperation to solve these issues seems hard to do right now. Hence it is more efficient to pump that dirty money into clean energy tech to quicken its takeover.
Not sure why this is rated 5, as it is just incorrect.
1,000 kilo, 100 hecto, 0.1 deci, 0.01 centi, 0.001 milli are used all the time.
Every day measurements for construction are usually in centimeters. (as all yardsticks are marked with centimeters). Though blueprints are in millimeters or meters depending on whats on them. Grocery is weighed in hecto(grams), grams or kilos.
Different fields use different scales when it suits them. Also different countries or areas might have different traditions as well.
They have seriously added some crap algorithms into newer operation systems. I upgraded my iPhone 6+ from 8.2 to 11.1 or something last week. Now the phone is fucking retard slow. Starting any app is way way slower than before the update. Just swiping feels sluggish. I have some apps that used to start instantly, now they take multiple seconds to start.
I had been trying to update every now for the last few years, but the damn phone just didn't want to, It just got stuck at the upgrading screen. So many newer apps could not be installed, since they required some fancy newer version. However last week it suddenly just worked. Now I wish I hadn't done it. Just kept the old OS.
If the old satellites fails before a new one gets up, a 40 year streak of data will be interrupted. That will have huge implications for climate modeling etc. In order to get useful data, the new satellite has to be calibrated together with the old ones. In order to calibrate the sensors both satellites need to be up and measure at the same time. It is not a trivial thing to do. It takes time to calibrate to ensure you have the same get good scientific data.
If I remember correctly the other three satellites are way over due in time, and could malfunction at any time. Looking at the track record of even older satellites it is impossible to know for how long a particular satellite will be functioning before some vital part like a gyro or a sensor breaks. So it is imperative to get another one up. And building a satellite takes time.
If you want to know more, I urge you to listen to this in-depth podcast about it. It's 2 years old, so I might not remember all details correctly but it was highly interesting and I think they commented the madness that there were politicians trying to stop the launch of this satellite. It is super vital for the future of understanding what its happening to our planet.
Because what you state is simply not true, you do get treatment about as quickly as anywhere else. I live in Sweden, and you are a rambling annonymous coward.
The reason why it took so much longer time than the initial estimates was that SpaceX thought it would require just a few modifications to an existing falcon 9 rocket, by slapping on two side boosters.
But the forces and stresses from having the side boosters on the core effectively meant they had to design the core from scratch again. It had to be able to withstand much larger stresses. Also having 27 engines close to each other rather than 9 increases vibration and heat. So in effect falcon heavy is almost a completely different rocket from falcon 9. And according to Musk, had they known this in advance they might not have gone down this path.
What they have achieved so far is truly amazing. I'm happy to be alive right now:)
Yes!
Carpenters The thing is so good. One of my definitive favourite movies.The characters, their roles, the special effects and the fact that there is no shit science makes it all perfect.
The 1951 version is, well ok, but nothing in comparison.
Have you heard Trump speak? He is alternatively lying or bragging in every other fracking sentence. Then just make shit up. Its like watching a dystopic comedy show or a circus attraction.
Talk about warping reality. How the hell can you think its a good thing he got elected? It do literally not understand. What the hell.
Sure you have crap media taking cheap shots on everything like comparing his inauguration speech to Bane. (Those speeches were nothing alike at all). But you have had that for more than a year now, a whole industry just making shit up for click bate sales or shares or whatever. Difference is Trump and his staff does this all the time, as a strategy and he's the elected president. Not some crap media company.
Undesirables to ovens? Are you smoking crack, or just using the same strategy yourself?
Better yet let the government own sll physical lines at street level. Let different providers compete to dig down new fibers for the government. Then let anyone compete in these fibers be it isps private ppl or whatever.it's retarded to try and compete on the infrastructure level. It's too exoensive so you will never gave a free market there.
Point is with a sea landing, you can make it physically impossible for the booster to land in someone's backyard.
That's not why they are done. Sea landings are done so they can land at all, since geo transfer orbital launches require so much energy/fuel that returning boosters to launch-site is physically impossible. If they could they would never ever do sea landings at all.
Landing on land is a 10 times simpler and a lot safer (for the rocket);-)
USA have been upholding and trying to spread the values of free liberal western democracy, which is in the worlds best interest. The way they've done it has been far from perfect, but there is no substitution for it today. EU could eventually maybe share that burden, if we don't dismantle ourselves before that. Russia is a nightmare state led by a dictator.
For the really really nerdy, who wants to know more about this, I can recommend the podcast Orbital Mechanics, specifically this episode about the Nasa Centennial Challenge: 3d Printed Habitats. (Which the ice dome was part of)
Slashdot Mirror
Its not about that, its about algorithms designed to present you with things that enrage you. Enclosing you in filter bubbles. Since enabling raw emotions is what keeps retention. Which turns into clicks and revenue + tracking data that can be sold to third parties.
Right now? Google. You have no say.
"These recommendations all too often serve up unsavory content:" Which overlord(s) will determine for the algorithm what is considered "unsavory"?
Just science. A a crap pot hypothesis is hilariously easy to spot even for machine learning.
Surely they will make a replica of that as well, to copy the entire experience of titanic!
What a load of crap.
There never was anything even close to a consensus among scientists about global cooling. I\m sick and tired hearing that argument being brought up time after time.
https://skepticalscience.com/7...
Yeah! lets make that piece of land into an unlivable wasteland as well. Lobbying oil companies must really know the best! We really need to pump all that oil, because we haven't got enough C02 yet. /s
Really Ivan?
Yeah, lets make the oceans into a big soup of crap instead so you can have your plastic, for the sake of convenience.
Apparently counterintuitively wooden beams handle fire better than steel beams. In a normal fire of 750-1000 degrees celcius the steel will lose 90% structural integrity while wood only 25% after 30min. This means the steel beam will have collapsed long before its wooden counterpart has.
http://www.nzwood.co.nz/faqs/w...
Me too! This makes me so happy! The ramifications for this successful launch and landings are just... just... .mind-boggling
Russ R.
April 5, 2013 at 2:20 pm
You gotta read beyond the headline.
First: 5.2% was a weighted average collective target for all participating developed nations. The US target was 7%.
“The 5.2% reduction in total developed country emissions will be realized through national reductions of 8% by Switzerland, many Central and East European states, and the European Union (the EU will achieve its target by distributing differing reduction rates to its member states); 7% by the US; and 6% by Canada, Hungary, Japan, and Poland. Russia, New Zealand, and Ukraine are to stabilize their emissions, while Norway may increase emissions by up to 1%, Australia by up to 8%, and Iceland 10%.”
Second, while the treaty was signed in 1997, the base year for reduction calculations was 1990 (or 1995 for certain GHGs).
“The agreement aims to lower overall emissions from a group of six greenhouse gases by 2008-12, calculated as an average over these five years. Cuts in the three most important gases – carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20) – will be measured against a base year of 1990. Cuts in three long-lived industrial gases – hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) – can be measured against either a 1990 or 1995 baseline. If compared to expected emissions levels for the year 2000, the total reductions required by the Protocol will actually be about 10%; this is because many industrialized countries have not succeeded in meeting their earlier non-binding aim of returning their emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000, and their emissions have in fact risen since 1990. Compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without emissions-control measures, the Protocol target represents a 30% cut. The Protocol should therefore send a powerful signal to business that it needs to accelerate the delivery of climate-friendly products and services.”
So, if I’m going to nitpick details 7% below 1990 level is a bigger target than 5.2% below 1997 levels.
But that doesn’t take away from the main point that the US has indeed reduced emissions substantially in the last 5 years, thanks to a shale gas boom and an economic bust.
Also... https://www.theguardian.com/en...
They should stop producing oil and natural gas first. Buying a Tesla with money you made selling oil does nothing for the globe.
I don't agree. In a perfect rational world oil & coal energy should be heavily taxed by global carbon tax for example. Then let the shift to greener & more efficient use of energy be solved by the heavy market forces stemming from that.
But that kind of global cooperation to solve these issues seems hard to do right now. Hence it is more efficient to pump that dirty money into clean energy tech to quicken its takeover.
Norway has a lot of money due to exporting fossil fuels like oil and natural gas. Good job Norway: you are causing global warming.
They are alleviating that by going all in on electric, Are you suggesting they should not?
Not sure why this is rated 5, as it is just incorrect.
1,000 kilo, 100 hecto, 0.1 deci, 0.01 centi, 0.001 milli are used all the time.
Every day measurements for construction are usually in centimeters. (as all yardsticks are marked with centimeters). Though blueprints are in millimeters or meters depending on whats on them. Grocery is weighed in hecto(grams), grams or kilos.
Different fields use different scales when it suits them. Also different countries or areas might have different traditions as well.
They have seriously added some crap algorithms into newer operation systems. I upgraded my iPhone 6+ from 8.2 to 11.1 or something last week. Now the phone is fucking retard slow. Starting any app is way way slower than before the update. Just swiping feels sluggish. I have some apps that used to start instantly, now they take multiple seconds to start.
I had been trying to update every now for the last few years, but the damn phone just didn't want to, It just got stuck at the upgrading screen. So many newer apps could not be installed, since they required some fancy newer version. However last week it suddenly just worked. Now I wish I hadn't done it. Just kept the old OS.
If the old satellites fails before a new one gets up, a 40 year streak of data will be interrupted. That will have huge implications for climate modeling etc. In order to get useful data, the new satellite has to be calibrated together with the old ones. In order to calibrate the sensors both satellites need to be up and measure at the same time. It is not a trivial thing to do. It takes time to calibrate to ensure you have the same get good scientific data.
If I remember correctly the other three satellites are way over due in time, and could malfunction at any time. Looking at the track record of even older satellites it is impossible to know for how long a particular satellite will be functioning before some vital part like a gyro or a sensor breaks. So it is imperative to get another one up. And building a satellite takes time.
If you want to know more, I urge you to listen to this in-depth podcast about it. It's 2 years old, so I might not remember all details correctly but it was highly interesting and I think they commented the madness that there were politicians trying to stop the launch of this satellite. It is super vital for the future of understanding what its happening to our planet.
http://omegataupodcast.net/164...
Should be:
Hi Virus!
Please don't infect me.
Because what you state is simply not true, you do get treatment about as quickly as anywhere else. I live in Sweden, and you are a rambling annonymous coward.
The reason why it took so much longer time than the initial estimates was that SpaceX thought it would require just a few modifications to an existing falcon 9 rocket, by slapping on two side boosters.
:)
But the forces and stresses from having the side boosters on the core effectively meant they had to design the core from scratch again. It had to be able to withstand much larger stresses. Also having 27 engines close to each other rather than 9 increases vibration and heat. So in effect falcon heavy is almost a completely different rocket from falcon 9. And according to Musk, had they known this in advance they might not have gone down this path.
What they have achieved so far is truly amazing. I'm happy to be alive right now
Yes!
Carpenters The thing is so good. One of my definitive favourite movies.The characters, their roles, the special effects and the fact that there is no shit science makes it all perfect.
The 1951 version is, well ok, but nothing in comparison.
Have you heard Trump speak? He is alternatively lying or bragging in every other fracking sentence. Then just make shit up. Its like watching a dystopic comedy show or a circus attraction.
Talk about warping reality. How the hell can you think its a good thing he got elected? It do literally not understand. What the hell.
Sure you have crap media taking cheap shots on everything like comparing his inauguration speech to Bane. (Those speeches were nothing alike at all). But you have had that for more than a year now, a whole industry just making shit up for click bate sales or shares or whatever.
Difference is Trump and his staff does this all the time, as a strategy and he's the elected president. Not some crap media company.
Undesirables to ovens? Are you smoking crack, or just using the same strategy yourself?
Better yet let the government own sll physical lines at street level. Let different providers compete to dig down new fibers for the government. Then let anyone compete in these fibers be it isps private ppl or whatever.it's retarded to try and compete on the infrastructure level. It's too exoensive so you will never gave a free market there.
Point is with a sea landing, you can make it physically impossible for the booster to land in someone's backyard.
That's not why they are done. Sea landings are done so they can land at all, since geo transfer orbital launches require so much energy/fuel that returning boosters to launch-site is physically impossible. If they could they would never ever do sea landings at all.
;-)
Landing on land is a 10 times simpler and a lot safer (for the rocket)
USA have been upholding and trying to spread the values of free liberal western democracy, which is in the worlds best interest. The way they've done it has been far from perfect, but there is no substitution for it today. EU could eventually maybe share that burden, if we don't dismantle ourselves before that. Russia is a nightmare state led by a dictator.
For the really really nerdy, who wants to know more about this, I can recommend the podcast Orbital Mechanics, specifically this episode about the Nasa Centennial Challenge: 3d Printed Habitats. (Which the ice dome was part of)
http://theorbitalmechanics.com...