I love it when people invoke their own reason for using a specific tool as the only reason anyone uses it.
Youtube became big because, basically, it's just easy to find videos. It has nothing to do with trying to avoid "family values", that's just your own rationale (and honestly, I don't actually believe it's even your's, you're just trying to show your weird alt-right street cred).
And if Youtube is going to be supported by ads, then advertisers have some considerable right to demand that their products not be associated, even accidentally, with violent or otherwise unsavory videos. You may not like it, but tough shit. Until Google finally allows for a paid subscription service for Youtube which allows people to skip ads entirely, the advertisers still have an enormous amount of muscle, and you don't.
Indeed. If there is a market for COBOL programmers (and it's clear there is), then the obvious solution is for unis and colleges to spit out more COBOL-literate CS graduates. Honestly, if I was ten years younger, I'd probably delve into it myself. It is, after all, just a programming language, and hardly on the same level of trying to learn Sanskrit.
The problem is that even if coal is completely deregulated, it's not miners who are going to be doing the extraction. The future of mining is automated. At best this will just give the coal barons a few more years of profit and do dick for the miners.
But it's not even going to be that good. Natural gas is killing coal, so there isn't even going to be a coal industry by the time renewables dominate. This is a classic "buggy whip" problem, in that there ain't gonna be no more horse-drawn carriages, so there ain't gonna be no more buggy whips. Whatever you think of Clinton, she was telling the miners the truth, their jobs are quickly becoming obsolete.
And the same goes for lots of other industries. Manufacturing is rapidly automating, so that even mass repatriation of US industrial capacity is not going to deliver the same level of employment that was there even thirty years ago. There's nothing the US government can do about it, short of outlawing automation and renewables, which would be sheer madness.
Christ, no less than Rick Perry himself has admitted the US needs to stay in the Paris Accord. Even the most pro-oil of pro-oil politicians know full well the jig is up. Oil isn't coming back, and as the price falls away it's impact on the economy diminishes. Coal was the first because it's the most expensive and most obviously harmful, but it applies to all the fossil fuels.
You're missing the point of a carbon tax. The tax is meant to speed the end of fossil fuel use. And really it's natural gas that killed coal, so you're going after the wrong target.
My favorite is liquid salt storage, which is pretty cool, but battery technology is jumping leaps and bounds and there are older methods, like pumped water storage.
Do you have any actual evidence that wind farms have this effect? This strikes me as arguing that NASA shouldn't use gravity assist because it robs a planet of some of its momentum.
In other words, while you're technically correct, the effect is so small as to be irrelevant. But tell you what, if you have evidence that wind farms actually have this large an effect, then provide citations. And no, some blog is not a citation. I mean peer reviewed or primary literature.
The rich can avoid them because taxation systems have loopholes. If you tax capital gains and remove loopholes and corporate resource rent, as well as financial transactions and the like, it becomes a lot more difficult to evade taxes.
The problem still remains that "over-abundance" will only apply to labor. It won't apply to capacity nor to raw resources. We'll have lots of humans with not enough to do, whereas Marxism remains a "classical" economic system which still thinks in terms of scarcity of labor.
I don't think the future is Communist, but neither do I think it is strictly capitalist. I think we're still going to have a fundamentally consumer society, still at its core free market, it's just that labor will no longer be an issue. It will mean adjusting precisely how it is that society as a whole profits from the means of production. And remember that Marxism was always more than merely an economic theory, but was fundamentally a socio-political theory. It was innovative in that it viewed economics as the very core, but it proposed a good deal more than simply "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", and involved revolution, dictatorship and what really does amount to a sort of single party state (because, after all, who needs more than one political movement when Marxism is perfect).
In the end, I expect we'll probably see a shift towards capital gains taxes, higher resource rents, transactional taxes (ie. taxes on the purchase or sale of bonds and shares) and other such mechanisms, and while lots of corporate interests will kick up a mighty storm, but there's little choice in the matter. At some point, robots will do a great deal of the work.
Just because people pay you for your services doesn't mean you create more than you consume. Perhaps you have some sort of serious illness, which means your health insurance provider may be paying you more than you are paying them. Perhaps you have enough write offs to heavily reduce your actual taxable income, meaning others are actually paying more tax than you.
But do you really pay enough money in taxes that it covers the building of the road past your house, pay for the wages and equipment of the firefighters who may have to put out your fire? There's an entire infrastructure out there that is paid for by the economic output of an entire society, and the idea that somehow anyone, even a billionaire, can claim responsibility for a significant fraction of it is absurd.
It's called taxes. We can debate which taxes would be best, but presumably if someone is making something, whether it be with human beings, robots or some combination, they also have sales, which means there are any number of financial transactions which can be taxed. Pick your poison; corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, excise taxes, etc. etc. etc. In the end, money is just a means of counting value.
Nuclear isn't a viable alternative. It's incredibly expensive to build and operate. Yes, it is largely emission free, but the other costs surrounding it simply do not make it a large scale alternative, at least not fission. And who knows when we'll ever have fusion reactors that can actually produce economically viable levels of power.
Models have all predicted warming, and there is warming.
But really, I doubt you know fuck all about any of the models. I doubt you know anything about AGW, but go ahead, prove me wrong. Describe, in terms that those who actually do research in climatology would use, and with snarky references to Al Gore or "lefties", what exactly AGW theory states, and why exactly the theory makes those specific set of claims. I openly challenge you to demonstrate you know anything about the science you're attacking.
And once again the bulk of CO2 emissions still come from the industrialized world, where, with few exceptions, populations are either static or falling.
So let's get this straight. You have databases that optimize SQL queries because of the narrow scope of that language, and somehow you think throwing in random code blocks in some other language where optimization for the data set is just about impossible and you don't think you're going to get serious performance hits?
There are certainly times when stored procedures may be necessary, but I've made it my policy to avoid them wherever possible. Using convenience as an argument for overriding a pretty sound programming philosophy sounds like a recipe for shit performance.
Why don't we deal with what scientists, rather than you going off on tangents about "alarmists" and seeming to accept the inevitability that which we could change. It's almost as if you don't actually want to deal with the science or the repercussions of human activities, but would rather play some pointless rhetorical game. I'll state right here that I don't give a fuck what Al Gore or Greenpeace says. They are not sources of information I go to, so throwing out what they say (or what you claim they say, since I don't recall any report that Al Gore said all the coast lines would be underwater by 2017) doesn't mean fuck all to me.
Yes, things change. Eventually the house you're living in will fall down. So I guess it's okay if I come and light in on fire, right?
What I don't get is why Google doesn't bring more of its apps to Windows. While I realize Chrome is a platform for Google apps, I'd love to have a Windows version of the actual GMail app for my Windows tablet, rather than the pretty shitty built-in Windows Mail app.
And the researchers acknowledge that by saying they don't have a mechanism. Once again, a link has been found. Whether that link turns to be some sort of co-factor, and there is no direct link between diet pop and strokes and dementia, is something further research will determine.
Precisely how is this not science? A study suggests a link. This will lead to further studies to determine whether the link is causative, and if so, what possible mechanisms are involved?
As I said to the other poster, I truly get the sense that some around here actually don't have the foggiest idea how science is done.
Slashdot Mirror
I love it when people invoke their own reason for using a specific tool as the only reason anyone uses it.
Youtube became big because, basically, it's just easy to find videos. It has nothing to do with trying to avoid "family values", that's just your own rationale (and honestly, I don't actually believe it's even your's, you're just trying to show your weird alt-right street cred).
And if Youtube is going to be supported by ads, then advertisers have some considerable right to demand that their products not be associated, even accidentally, with violent or otherwise unsavory videos. You may not like it, but tough shit. Until Google finally allows for a paid subscription service for Youtube which allows people to skip ads entirely, the advertisers still have an enormous amount of muscle, and you don't.
Indeed. If there is a market for COBOL programmers (and it's clear there is), then the obvious solution is for unis and colleges to spit out more COBOL-literate CS graduates. Honestly, if I was ten years younger, I'd probably delve into it myself. It is, after all, just a programming language, and hardly on the same level of trying to learn Sanskrit.
The problem is that even if coal is completely deregulated, it's not miners who are going to be doing the extraction. The future of mining is automated. At best this will just give the coal barons a few more years of profit and do dick for the miners.
But it's not even going to be that good. Natural gas is killing coal, so there isn't even going to be a coal industry by the time renewables dominate. This is a classic "buggy whip" problem, in that there ain't gonna be no more horse-drawn carriages, so there ain't gonna be no more buggy whips. Whatever you think of Clinton, she was telling the miners the truth, their jobs are quickly becoming obsolete.
And the same goes for lots of other industries. Manufacturing is rapidly automating, so that even mass repatriation of US industrial capacity is not going to deliver the same level of employment that was there even thirty years ago. There's nothing the US government can do about it, short of outlawing automation and renewables, which would be sheer madness.
Christ, no less than Rick Perry himself has admitted the US needs to stay in the Paris Accord. Even the most pro-oil of pro-oil politicians know full well the jig is up. Oil isn't coming back, and as the price falls away it's impact on the economy diminishes. Coal was the first because it's the most expensive and most obviously harmful, but it applies to all the fossil fuels.
You're missing the point of a carbon tax. The tax is meant to speed the end of fossil fuel use. And really it's natural gas that killed coal, so you're going after the wrong target.
Wikipedia lists several:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
My favorite is liquid salt storage, which is pretty cool, but battery technology is jumping leaps and bounds and there are older methods, like pumped water storage.
Do you have any actual evidence that wind farms have this effect? This strikes me as arguing that NASA shouldn't use gravity assist because it robs a planet of some of its momentum.
In other words, while you're technically correct, the effect is so small as to be irrelevant. But tell you what, if you have evidence that wind farms actually have this large an effect, then provide citations. And no, some blog is not a citation. I mean peer reviewed or primary literature.
Because China is the oil industry's favorite whipping boy these days.
The rich can avoid them because taxation systems have loopholes. If you tax capital gains and remove loopholes and corporate resource rent, as well as financial transactions and the like, it becomes a lot more difficult to evade taxes.
The problem still remains that "over-abundance" will only apply to labor. It won't apply to capacity nor to raw resources. We'll have lots of humans with not enough to do, whereas Marxism remains a "classical" economic system which still thinks in terms of scarcity of labor.
I don't think the future is Communist, but neither do I think it is strictly capitalist. I think we're still going to have a fundamentally consumer society, still at its core free market, it's just that labor will no longer be an issue. It will mean adjusting precisely how it is that society as a whole profits from the means of production. And remember that Marxism was always more than merely an economic theory, but was fundamentally a socio-political theory. It was innovative in that it viewed economics as the very core, but it proposed a good deal more than simply "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", and involved revolution, dictatorship and what really does amount to a sort of single party state (because, after all, who needs more than one political movement when Marxism is perfect).
In the end, I expect we'll probably see a shift towards capital gains taxes, higher resource rents, transactional taxes (ie. taxes on the purchase or sale of bonds and shares) and other such mechanisms, and while lots of corporate interests will kick up a mighty storm, but there's little choice in the matter. At some point, robots will do a great deal of the work.
The actual replacement rate for a population is 2.1 children per female, if you want to maintain a static population.
Just because people pay you for your services doesn't mean you create more than you consume. Perhaps you have some sort of serious illness, which means your health insurance provider may be paying you more than you are paying them. Perhaps you have enough write offs to heavily reduce your actual taxable income, meaning others are actually paying more tax than you.
But do you really pay enough money in taxes that it covers the building of the road past your house, pay for the wages and equipment of the firefighters who may have to put out your fire? There's an entire infrastructure out there that is paid for by the economic output of an entire society, and the idea that somehow anyone, even a billionaire, can claim responsibility for a significant fraction of it is absurd.
It's called taxes. We can debate which taxes would be best, but presumably if someone is making something, whether it be with human beings, robots or some combination, they also have sales, which means there are any number of financial transactions which can be taxed. Pick your poison; corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, excise taxes, etc. etc. etc. In the end, money is just a means of counting value.
I'm not asking you to prove a crash in housing starts, I'm asking to provide evidence of a link between that and methane levels.
Unless you have some actual statistics to back that up, this looks like a false correlation to me.
What exactly is "physics of weather". Do you mean you're a fucking weather man. Not that I believe even that.
Climate != weather
Nuclear isn't a viable alternative. It's incredibly expensive to build and operate. Yes, it is largely emission free, but the other costs surrounding it simply do not make it a large scale alternative, at least not fission. And who knows when we'll ever have fusion reactors that can actually produce economically viable levels of power.
Models have all predicted warming, and there is warming.
But really, I doubt you know fuck all about any of the models. I doubt you know anything about AGW, but go ahead, prove me wrong. Describe, in terms that those who actually do research in climatology would use, and with snarky references to Al Gore or "lefties", what exactly AGW theory states, and why exactly the theory makes those specific set of claims. I openly challenge you to demonstrate you know anything about the science you're attacking.
And once again the bulk of CO2 emissions still come from the industrialized world, where, with few exceptions, populations are either static or falling.
Only if you stop sticking Donald Trump action figures up it.
So let's get this straight. You have databases that optimize SQL queries because of the narrow scope of that language, and somehow you think throwing in random code blocks in some other language where optimization for the data set is just about impossible and you don't think you're going to get serious performance hits?
There are certainly times when stored procedures may be necessary, but I've made it my policy to avoid them wherever possible. Using convenience as an argument for overriding a pretty sound programming philosophy sounds like a recipe for shit performance.
Why don't we deal with what scientists, rather than you going off on tangents about "alarmists" and seeming to accept the inevitability that which we could change. It's almost as if you don't actually want to deal with the science or the repercussions of human activities, but would rather play some pointless rhetorical game. I'll state right here that I don't give a fuck what Al Gore or Greenpeace says. They are not sources of information I go to, so throwing out what they say (or what you claim they say, since I don't recall any report that Al Gore said all the coast lines would be underwater by 2017) doesn't mean fuck all to me.
Yes, things change. Eventually the house you're living in will fall down. So I guess it's okay if I come and light in on fire, right?
Because there's nothing I love better than entering in SMTP and IMAP commands into a Telnet window to retrieve email!
What I don't get is why Google doesn't bring more of its apps to Windows. While I realize Chrome is a platform for Google apps, I'd love to have a Windows version of the actual GMail app for my Windows tablet, rather than the pretty shitty built-in Windows Mail app.
And the researchers acknowledge that by saying they don't have a mechanism. Once again, a link has been found. Whether that link turns to be some sort of co-factor, and there is no direct link between diet pop and strokes and dementia, is something further research will determine.
Precisely how is this not science? A study suggests a link. This will lead to further studies to determine whether the link is causative, and if so, what possible mechanisms are involved?
As I said to the other poster, I truly get the sense that some around here actually don't have the foggiest idea how science is done.