I wouldn't say never. We're looking at replacing our Exchange infrastructure in the next 2-3 years, and I said after I brought us up to Exchange 2010 that whatever moderate benefits Exchange offers, I wouldn't be pushing ahead with another version, and now that I'm in a management position with the authority to decide, I'm definitely not going to be staying with Exchange. At the moment the most likely route will be Google's offerings, and once we've broken away from Exchange-Outlook, I think it's likely that MS-Office won't be far behind, and neither will Active Directory, so there goes the Windows servers. For us the biggest challenge is moving away from Excel and our Windows-based accounting system.
The experience in our upgrade to Windows 10 has fully convinced me that Microsoft is going in a direction which renders it fairly unfriendly to business. Costs keep mounting for licensing, but so do the plague of problems, and while everything gets fixed in time, overall, Windows 10 has been a pretty shitty experience. If we go to cloud-based solutions, I can just buy everyone Chromebooks if I want.
How about factoring in the CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants. I suggest to you that coal may actually be the most heavily subsidized energy source of all time, since we're basically pushing the costs of using such power plants down the road decades, so our grandchildren can pay hundreds of billions, if not trillions, so we can have cheap electricity now.
And yet we have been doing it with other kinds of transmission cables for 150 years. What problems do you envision that would be different with an electrical transmission cable than with a copper telecommunications cable?
In fact, it looks to me like whatever problems you are imagining have already been solved. NorNed is 360 miles long and has a loss of 4.2%.
It's always fun to watch pseudo-skeptics basically work in nothing but red herrings in non sequiturs. It's almost as if they know they have no real argument, so just automatically go to fallacies.
While I imagine cables for transmitting power are obviously going to be considerably different than telecommunications cables, the fact is that we've been laying cables on the ocean floor for 150 years, so I hardly think it's that much of a technical challenge. Obviously there will be some loss due to distance, but overland transmission cables can easily transmit at similar distances with fairly manageable loss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
And where the hell do you get the idea that previous climate periods aren't considered? It strikes me that you know virtually nothing about climatology, and just simply repeat what you've heard from denier sites?
Yes it is true of AGW, which is constantly tested and refined, and built upon the well known physical properties of greenhouse gases. You just don't like the answer, so you raise a constant stream of ignorant and ludicrous objections.
Question science all you want, but ask intelligent questions. Denying pretty incontrovertible facts like CO2's properties around absorbing solar radiation is basically the same as denying the Earth is round.
The consensus is that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics explain a significant amount of physical phenomena. The consensus is that biological evolution and common descent explain the diversity of life we see on this planet. The consensus is that the universe is a little over 13 billion years old. The consensus is that HIV causes AIDS. The consensus is that the human brain is the seat of consciousness. The consensus is that electrons exist and carry a negative charge. The consensus is that CO2 absorbs solar radiation in certain spectra and re-emits that energy, thus creating a situation in which higher concentrations of CO2 can lead to more energy (heat) in the lower atmosphere.
Consensus built on data and experiment isn't bad, so the idea that you can just simply declare "consensus is wrong" is beyond absurd. It's sort of taking Kuhn's paradigm shift (an idea even he later admitted he'd overstated) to an extreme, whereby science is somehow not the steady building of knowledge, but rather periods of lazy acceptance punctured by periods of extreme change and new ideas. While such events do happen, they happen extremely rarely, and I'd challenge you to name more than a handful of scientific theories that have been out and out falsified. The only major ones in the last hundred years or so I can think of that have been thrown out are some of the pre-tectonic geological theories and the Steady State model. Even Newtonian mechanics wasn't really falsified, and serves as a reasonable way of making calculations in non-relativistic applications (which apply to most normal problems).
So what we have here at the end of the day is posters like you just mindlessly repeating Koch brothers memes, with a near total ignorance of science.
And at the end of the day, CO2 has the properties it has, and those properties have been known for well over a century, as has the basic idea that if you increase CO2 concentrations even fractionally in the atmosphere, you will inevitably, as a consequence of the way the universe functions, trap energy (heat) in the lower atmosphere, which will lead to warming of both land and ocean. Couple that with the way oceanic chemistry works, it also means you alter the pH level of the oceans, effectively acidifying them. There is absolutely nothing controversial this. This is simply the way the universe works. It doesn't care that you don't like the effects. It doesn't care about your ideology or who you voted for president. The universe functions the way it does, and all your declarations to the otherwise are simply the utterings of a fool on the Internet, impotent, ignorant, and just plain goddamned stupid.
But he is going to get rid of the scientist whose analyzing data sent to him from NASA satellites. I'm sure Trump wants all the sharks with frickin laser beams he can get his hands on, but since he's made it clear he believes climate change is a big hoax, he'll defund every aspect of climate research.
No, actually, I do read science, scientific papers and digests by, you know, actual scientists, instead of being a cowardly little snowflake so afraid of big bad science that he has to go around manufacturing bizarre notions of how he thinks science works to preserve his delicate and fragile ego from reality.
You're so sad, small, and pathetic, but you know what, the universe doesn't fucking care about your pseudo-skepticism, coward boy. CO2 has the properties it has, and it doesn't fucking care that that hurts your teeny eeny whittle coward boy feelings. Now go back under your mamma's skirt, coward boy, and let adults do what needs to be done.
SAys the delicate snowflake child man who doesn't have the vaguest idea how science functions, and imagines that a pack of engineers and political operatives somehow represents some significant blow against a scientific theory.
Yes, CO2 absorbs solar radiation. This has been known for over a century, and early physicists even speculated that increasing the amount in the atmosphere would lead to heating.
There is absolutely nothing controversial about AGW, it's only because a lot of people would lose money if oil was priced for the damage it does that there is a political controversy.
If your coastal area is thousands of square miles, there is no "dealing" with it. Unless a country has the vast resources of an industrialized society, there's only one solution... move out. Oh, and too bad that large chunks of your arable land now are regularly under *salt water*.
Slashdot Mirror
This seems a reasonably good description of the laying, maintenance and repair of submarine electrical transmission cables:
http://www.escaeu.org/articles...
I wouldn't say never. We're looking at replacing our Exchange infrastructure in the next 2-3 years, and I said after I brought us up to Exchange 2010 that whatever moderate benefits Exchange offers, I wouldn't be pushing ahead with another version, and now that I'm in a management position with the authority to decide, I'm definitely not going to be staying with Exchange. At the moment the most likely route will be Google's offerings, and once we've broken away from Exchange-Outlook, I think it's likely that MS-Office won't be far behind, and neither will Active Directory, so there goes the Windows servers. For us the biggest challenge is moving away from Excel and our Windows-based accounting system.
The experience in our upgrade to Windows 10 has fully convinced me that Microsoft is going in a direction which renders it fairly unfriendly to business. Costs keep mounting for licensing, but so do the plague of problems, and while everything gets fixed in time, overall, Windows 10 has been a pretty shitty experience. If we go to cloud-based solutions, I can just buy everyone Chromebooks if I want.
How about factoring in the CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants. I suggest to you that coal may actually be the most heavily subsidized energy source of all time, since we're basically pushing the costs of using such power plants down the road decades, so our grandchildren can pay hundreds of billions, if not trillions, so we can have cheap electricity now.
Are you factoring in the long term costs of continuing to use coal-fired power plants?
And yet we have been doing it with other kinds of transmission cables for 150 years. What problems do you envision that would be different with an electrical transmission cable than with a copper telecommunications cable?
In fact, it looks to me like whatever problems you are imagining have already been solved. NorNed is 360 miles long and has a loss of 4.2%.
In other words, there is no real problem.
Most plants die and release their sequestered CO2 in fairly short order. "Greening" does not eliminate global warming.
It's always fun to watch pseudo-skeptics basically work in nothing but red herrings in non sequiturs. It's almost as if they know they have no real argument, so just automatically go to fallacies.
You can, you know, have multiple types of energy generation, right?
While I imagine cables for transmitting power are obviously going to be considerably different than telecommunications cables, the fact is that we've been laying cables on the ocean floor for 150 years, so I hardly think it's that much of a technical challenge. Obviously there will be some loss due to distance, but overland transmission cables can easily transmit at similar distances with fairly manageable loss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
And where the hell do you get the idea that previous climate periods aren't considered? It strikes me that you know virtually nothing about climatology, and just simply repeat what you've heard from denier sites?
Have you even bothered to ask a researcher?
Yes it is true of AGW, which is constantly tested and refined, and built upon the well known physical properties of greenhouse gases. You just don't like the answer, so you raise a constant stream of ignorant and ludicrous objections.
The US has tried to flee its international position before, and it simply cannot afford to do it long.
The fact that some of the industries have, in the past, be notorious polluters who have caused significant harm doesn't bother you?
Question science all you want, but ask intelligent questions. Denying pretty incontrovertible facts like CO2's properties around absorbing solar radiation is basically the same as denying the Earth is round.
The consensus is that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics explain a significant amount of physical phenomena. The consensus is that biological evolution and common descent explain the diversity of life we see on this planet. The consensus is that the universe is a little over 13 billion years old. The consensus is that HIV causes AIDS. The consensus is that the human brain is the seat of consciousness. The consensus is that electrons exist and carry a negative charge. The consensus is that CO2 absorbs solar radiation in certain spectra and re-emits that energy, thus creating a situation in which higher concentrations of CO2 can lead to more energy (heat) in the lower atmosphere.
Consensus built on data and experiment isn't bad, so the idea that you can just simply declare "consensus is wrong" is beyond absurd. It's sort of taking Kuhn's paradigm shift (an idea even he later admitted he'd overstated) to an extreme, whereby science is somehow not the steady building of knowledge, but rather periods of lazy acceptance punctured by periods of extreme change and new ideas. While such events do happen, they happen extremely rarely, and I'd challenge you to name more than a handful of scientific theories that have been out and out falsified. The only major ones in the last hundred years or so I can think of that have been thrown out are some of the pre-tectonic geological theories and the Steady State model. Even Newtonian mechanics wasn't really falsified, and serves as a reasonable way of making calculations in non-relativistic applications (which apply to most normal problems).
So what we have here at the end of the day is posters like you just mindlessly repeating Koch brothers memes, with a near total ignorance of science.
And at the end of the day, CO2 has the properties it has, and those properties have been known for well over a century, as has the basic idea that if you increase CO2 concentrations even fractionally in the atmosphere, you will inevitably, as a consequence of the way the universe functions, trap energy (heat) in the lower atmosphere, which will lead to warming of both land and ocean. Couple that with the way oceanic chemistry works, it also means you alter the pH level of the oceans, effectively acidifying them. There is absolutely nothing controversial this. This is simply the way the universe works. It doesn't care that you don't like the effects. It doesn't care about your ideology or who you voted for president. The universe functions the way it does, and all your declarations to the otherwise are simply the utterings of a fool on the Internet, impotent, ignorant, and just plain goddamned stupid.
If you have some evidence that data is being fabricated, then provide it.
But he is going to get rid of the scientist whose analyzing data sent to him from NASA satellites. I'm sure Trump wants all the sharks with frickin laser beams he can get his hands on, but since he's made it clear he believes climate change is a big hoax, he'll defund every aspect of climate research.
And now we have the final cover for the cowardly little science deniers...
No, actually, I do read science, scientific papers and digests by, you know, actual scientists, instead of being a cowardly little snowflake so afraid of big bad science that he has to go around manufacturing bizarre notions of how he thinks science works to preserve his delicate and fragile ego from reality.
You're so sad, small, and pathetic, but you know what, the universe doesn't fucking care about your pseudo-skepticism, coward boy. CO2 has the properties it has, and it doesn't fucking care that that hurts your teeny eeny whittle coward boy feelings. Now go back under your mamma's skirt, coward boy, and let adults do what needs to be done.
SAys the delicate snowflake child man who doesn't have the vaguest idea how science functions, and imagines that a pack of engineers and political operatives somehow represents some significant blow against a scientific theory.
You really are a pathetic worthless moron.
Yes, CO2 absorbs solar radiation. This has been known for over a century, and early physicists even speculated that increasing the amount in the atmosphere would lead to heating.
There is absolutely nothing controversial about AGW, it's only because a lot of people would lose money if oil was priced for the damage it does that there is a political controversy.
Well, since you're clearly a sociopath, I don't suppose you should care.
If your coastal area is thousands of square miles, there is no "dealing" with it. Unless a country has the vast resources of an industrialized society, there's only one solution... move out. Oh, and too bad that large chunks of your arable land now are regularly under *salt water*.
We had to abandon Classic Shell because it became unreliable and tended towards lock ups. Even uninstalling it on Win10 could be... interesting.