Does it even matter who owns a nuclear power company? Those companies are highly regulated, they serve the same group of people that pay taxes (i.e. everybody), and if they are too big to fail, and something goes wrong for them financially, they will be bailed out with tax money anyway. Not to mention massive subsidies, which have been approved recently , just before the new EU commission took over.
Come on. You can use the same argument on broadcasting basically any activity, sports and music in particular. What's the fun in watching someone play tennis or the violin when you can do it yourself? Well, some can't do it themselves, and most cannot do it nearly as proficiently as the talents/professionals they are watching.
Word mincing aside, there is an actual "Ludum Dare" channel on Twitch already. It lets people broadcast how they write a video game over a weekend, and I can assure you it has several thousand viewers when it's on, so there's your proof that there is an audience for people writing code.
Ludum Dare, the competition to write a game from scratch over a weekend, already has its own Twitch channel, and it has several thousand viewers across a good 20 streamers when it's on. So while the efforts of A.P. to get people to watch other people code are appreciated, he's not exactly the first.
While I do regret the real financial consequences for creators whose content I consume and appreciate, the annoyance factor and sometimes security risks of online advertising far outstrip my capacity for caring. Pure text ads would be fine by me, but as soon as ads start screaming at me audio-visually, I turn them the fuck off, no matter how much I like the content they surround.
The more people you teach to do X, the more of them will end up at the far end of the bell curve for competence at X, and those will be, to stay in your analogy, the rocket surgeons of their time for X.
Stop bombing the Middle East for a few hours, or stop the global mass surveillance for a few minutes, and you're set for the year. But hey, at least you have your priorities straigth.
I bet open-pit mining for coal, uranium looks SO much better in your typical landscape, and the pollution from burning coal doesn't kill very many birds.
Generally, a public company will invest only if there is an expectation of an acceptable return, or if they are forced to by actual regulation. Businesses like power, water, public transportation, telecommunication, and others require huge investments to get into the market, where possible at all, so there is no real competition either.
Wow, 6 years ahead of expectations? Sounds a lot like how publicly traded companies set lower goals so they can over-achieve them. Germany already has over 50% renewable electric power on sunny days, while having about the same insolation as Alaska. 50% by 2025 doesn't seem awfully ambitious to me, especially in Australia. They have the sunshine hours and they have the large, unused areas. What the hell is stopping them? I can only guess: lack of political will.
The way I see it, he had the mutually exclusive choices of revealing nothing, making an ineffectual internal complaint, and doing what he has done. If he had actually raised substantial concerns, officially or otherwise, he would have lost his security clearances in a heartbeat.
That may be a rhetoric criticism to be leveled against Google, but the law has a different opinion. Google and their users have entered mutual contractual obligations. Whether or not those obligations directly involve money in any way does not matter.
A customer is someone who receives a service from a company, even if the (monetary) price for that service is zero. Google and their users have agreed on certain terms which gives the customer some rights (using the services offered by Google), and Google some rights (collecting and using the customer's personal information for ads, etc.)
Nuclear require an extreme accident to become a hazard to human life, while coal/NG kills every day.
Uranium mining is hazardous to the miners and local/regional residents because of the radioactivity they are exposed to, uses large quantities of water to reduce airborne uranium dust, and uses a lot of fossil fuel to separate the uranium from the gangue and to transport it to the consuming power plants. Therefore, nuclear also kills every day. It just doesn't usually happen in the country using the nuclear fuel, so it's effectively Somebody Else's Problem, but a problem nonetheless. Nuclear power is NOT carbon neutral by a long shot, much less environmentally neutral.
This time it's not political critters developing a shred of common sense, it's political critters channeling civil society's common sense and massive protests. For once, they have worked.
You jest, but that's exactly the point. "Simulated years per day" is about as meaningless a metric as it gets, because, as you proved, that number depends on the complexity of the underlying climate model, and also on how well the software was written, i.e. if it is optimized for both the hardware and the model to be computed.
Both these factors are hard/impossible to control and to standardize, and the only factor that does not change is the actual hardware and its peak/sustained performance, so it's the only sensible metric.
Iantastik's humor threshold is an extremely stable one and it would take a great deal of explaining to reach it. The amount of explaining it would take would be counter-productive to the initial problem of telling a good science joke.
Until we can figure out how to simulate good joke telling or just go ahead and let Monty Python do it, this just ins't the best solution available.
However, neither is beating it into your head in my opinion....since no one is laughing, I guess you just didn't get it though.
Slashdot Mirror
Does it even matter who owns a nuclear power company? Those companies are highly regulated, they serve the same group of people that pay taxes (i.e. everybody), and if they are too big to fail, and something goes wrong for them financially, they will be bailed out with tax money anyway. Not to mention massive subsidies, which have been approved recently , just before the new EU commission took over.
Come on. You can use the same argument on broadcasting basically any activity, sports and music in particular. What's the fun in watching someone play tennis or the violin when you can do it yourself? Well, some can't do it themselves, and most cannot do it nearly as proficiently as the talents/professionals they are watching. Word mincing aside, there is an actual "Ludum Dare" channel on Twitch already. It lets people broadcast how they write a video game over a weekend, and I can assure you it has several thousand viewers when it's on, so there's your proof that there is an audience for people writing code.
Ludum Dare, the competition to write a game from scratch over a weekend, already has its own Twitch channel, and it has several thousand viewers across a good 20 streamers when it's on. So while the efforts of A.P. to get people to watch other people code are appreciated, he's not exactly the first.
What's the point of recording history, if not going over it again?
While I do regret the real financial consequences for creators whose content I consume and appreciate, the annoyance factor and sometimes security risks of online advertising far outstrip my capacity for caring. Pure text ads would be fine by me, but as soon as ads start screaming at me audio-visually, I turn them the fuck off, no matter how much I like the content they surround.
Do you want a James Bond-style supervillain? Because that's how you create James Bond-style supervillains.
The more people you teach to do X, the more of them will end up at the far end of the bell curve for competence at X, and those will be, to stay in your analogy, the rocket surgeons of their time for X.
Stop bombing the Middle East for a few hours, or stop the global mass surveillance for a few minutes, and you're set for the year. But hey, at least you have your priorities straigth.
I bet open-pit mining for coal, uranium looks SO much better in your typical landscape, and the pollution from burning coal doesn't kill very many birds.
Generally, a public company will invest only if there is an expectation of an acceptable return, or if they are forced to by actual regulation. Businesses like power, water, public transportation, telecommunication, and others require huge investments to get into the market, where possible at all, so there is no real competition either.
http://i.stack.imgur.com/sgctZ...
Wow, 6 years ahead of expectations? Sounds a lot like how publicly traded companies set lower goals so they can over-achieve them. Germany already has over 50% renewable electric power on sunny days, while having about the same insolation as Alaska. 50% by 2025 doesn't seem awfully ambitious to me, especially in Australia. They have the sunshine hours and they have the large, unused areas. What the hell is stopping them? I can only guess: lack of political will.
The way I see it, he had the mutually exclusive choices of revealing nothing, making an ineffectual internal complaint, and doing what he has done. If he had actually raised substantial concerns, officially or otherwise, he would have lost his security clearances in a heartbeat.
That may be a rhetoric criticism to be leveled against Google, but the law has a different opinion. Google and their users have entered mutual contractual obligations. Whether or not those obligations directly involve money in any way does not matter.
A customer is someone who receives a service from a company, even if the (monetary) price for that service is zero. Google and their users have agreed on certain terms which gives the customer some rights (using the services offered by Google), and Google some rights (collecting and using the customer's personal information for ads, etc.)
Nuclear require an extreme accident to become a hazard to human life, while coal/NG kills every day.
Uranium mining is hazardous to the miners and local/regional residents because of the radioactivity they are exposed to, uses large quantities of water to reduce airborne uranium dust, and uses a lot of fossil fuel to separate the uranium from the gangue and to transport it to the consuming power plants. Therefore, nuclear also kills every day. It just doesn't usually happen in the country using the nuclear fuel, so it's effectively Somebody Else's Problem, but a problem nonetheless. Nuclear power is NOT carbon neutral by a long shot, much less environmentally neutral.
And if that fails, at least give us a standardized interface to share our data, for saving costs.
You seem to forget the asteroid launched at and hitting Earth by bugs (implausible as that may be, but that's the story)
Stanley Cubrick did it in 1971, and it's been a classic since. Ah yes, the old ultra-violet. Nothing like milk plus to sharpen you up a bit.
This time it's not political critters developing a shred of common sense, it's political critters channeling civil society's common sense and massive protests. For once, they have worked.
"Unable to connect to database server"
1. Make the proof for P=NP the new CAPTCHA
2. Wait for crackers to solve it.
3. Profit!!
Sucks to be one of the people who have already rang the Doom Bell and put the family suicide knife to use.
You jest, but that's exactly the point. "Simulated years per day" is about as meaningless a metric as it gets, because, as you proved, that number depends on the complexity of the underlying climate model, and also on how well the software was written, i.e. if it is optimized for both the hardware and the model to be computed.
Both these factors are hard/impossible to control and to standardize, and the only factor that does not change is the actual hardware and its peak/sustained performance, so it's the only sensible metric.
Iantastik's humor threshold is an extremely stable one and it would take a great deal of explaining to reach it. The amount of explaining it would take would be counter-productive to the initial problem of telling a good science joke.
...since no one is laughing, I guess you just didn't get it though.
Until we can figure out how to simulate good joke telling or just go ahead and let Monty Python do it, this just ins't the best solution available.
However, neither is beating it into your head in my opinion.