And if you want to reduce CO2 emissions, it's a two-step process. First you have to get electric cars
Not true. Electrical cars will not reduce CO2 emissions with a reliably measurable amount. 2-3% theoretical percentage points at most.
then you need to get better power plants
This is where you start. This is where you work hard, and once you have solved this, you have solved the CO2 emission problem. Nothing else really matters. Go nuclear and we're all OK. It's safe (yes, it is) and it is quite clean (except for the mines). It is not renewable though, so it is a stop-gap measure.
That is good. For the two billionth time. Sadly, the thing they do not take into consideration is the following: Moving the entire world fleet of gasoline and diesel personal vehicles to electrical (for fun, lets assume it's possible to make the switch entirely pollution free) will have a statistical negligeble effect on the total CO2 emissions, since personal cars emit less than 10%, closer to 5% of the total human-produced CO2, and though a Tesla emits less CO2 than an SUV, it doesn't emit significantly less CO2 than a regular car, so total reduction in CO2 is negligeble and irrelevant.
Talking about what to do with our personal vehicles to reduce CO2 emissions is like talking about how to reduce the number of joggers, runners, athletes and other high-CO2 emitters. It's just dumb. Personal transportation emits some 5-7% of all CO2. Cutting it in half (which will probably not happen with electrical cars outside of places like Norway - all hydro powered) will not produce a reliably measurable drop in CO2 emissions. Any environmentalist or politician who talks about doing something about personal transportation do solve the CO2 problem is a blithering idiot and can safely be ignored.
Will changing all the worlds cars (private, trucks are a ways away still) to electrical vehicles have a statistically significant impact on CO2 emissions?
Will changing all the worlds cars (private, trucks are a ways away still) to electrical vehicles have measurable impact on CO2 emissions?
The answer to the first is, no, it won't. The answer to the second is, probably not, unless we get better at calculating averages over such a huge volume as the worlds entire atmosphere.
If electrical cars are the answer, the question was never "How can we reduce human CO2 emissions?" It might have been "How can we feel better about our self without doing a damned thing about the problem?"
The motor vehicle fleet produces (upper limits) about 15% of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Of that, the private (personal as opposed to professional transportation) is about 40-60% or so. So, perhaps 7% of CO2 emissions are from what people think of as cars, the stuff that is targeted by the mindless, uneducated morons we have put in power. So, electrical cars are possibly more efficient than SUVs, but they are not terribly more efficient than a regular car (Honda Accord seemingly). So, the savings in emissions by turning the car fleet into electrical vehicles - which can only be gotten from the 7%, I don't see Tesla Buses coming any time soon, is quite low. In fact, turning the entire worlds car park from gas guzzlers to Tesla Model S's would have something of a statistically insignificant impact on the total CO2 emissions.
Why, if changing the entire world fleet of personal cars into electircal vehicles will have no measurable impact on CO2 emissions, are all the environmental nuts yacking about this? Should they/you not be yacknig about something that can make an actual difference?
Because you are fairly computer literate. Most people are not. When desktops were the norm, people thought the case was called "the CPU". Most people don't know the difference between a running program and its data. Most people have never heard of, let alone read or post to/. You are not "most people". You are just a retarded nerd.
You have no clue what "most people" even mean, do you? Most people are fuzzy on the difference between a program and its data. Most people don't know H.264 from DV-AVI. Most people can, given some training, grasp iMovie or Windows Movie Maker, and that's it. Most people never use an external microphone when recording video of their kids playing in the garden or swimming in the pool. Most people (in the western world) have video recording capabilities, and statistically none of them use anything else than the built in microphone to record sound with their video.
Personally I use mostly a Zoom h4n, but I am not most people. I also use PocketWizards and multiple speedlights when doing flash photography. The vast majority of the population uses either the built-in flash or a separate flash mounted on the camera.
Wow, you really are a moron, are you not? Virtualdub is for fairly advanced video editors. In other words, not most people. Most people would doubleclick the movie file and not have a clue what to do when it didn't play.
That's why I didn't say "what most professional or highly advanced enthusiasts are willing to do", I said "most people". "Most people" never even get a proper microphone for their camcorder.
Sigh. Yeah, 'cause Virtual Dub is what the average user installs first when he gets a computer. Please take context into consideration. "You can't even" doesn't mean "You as a person can't even", think "One can't...". Again. Context.
Translated, that means the camera already has the hardware required for the task
No, it doesn't. The video captured with a hacked 50D is not usable as is. You can't even watch it on a computer. Also, back then, it would not have been possible to make this hack work since there were no memory cards that would be able to store more than a few seconds (just over two in fact, at 24fps) of video. What do you think Canon customers would have said if the Canon 50D commercial had said:
Buy the 50D and make video with your DSLR. You can record almost three seconds of video before it stops for a while writing to the CF card. You will be able to record up to 3-5 minutes of video in two second burts to your memory card, so bring a lot of memory cards to the wedding. Oh, and btw, the video can not be watched on the camera nor on any TV or computer known to man. After having shot the video you will need to import the video to your computer, then import it into Adobe After Effects (part of the Adobe CS2 package at $2000 or so) for color grading (which is required) and rendering to video. Your two second bursts are sure to be a winner at the after-wedding party if the party is set about a week or so after the wedding.
The camera wasn't crippled at all. It was built very well, but some of the components can today be used differently when upgrading the software. Providing you have hardware plugged into the camera that is available today but that was not available when the camera was released. Oh, and remember, the camera doesn't actually shoot video, it stores a sequence of images that you can import to a powerful computer equipped with specialized software to make a movie from. None of what you have seen was captured by the camera alone.
Not even close to a competitive specification in relation to this discussion. The camera doesn't have a microphone. Shooting video with no sound is not something most people are willing to do. Also, at the time of the camera release, DSLR video was not close to as practical as it is today. The on-board chip would not have been able to encode H.264 at a pace required to store on the CF cards at the time. RAW video would have been unthinkable since the CF cards of the time could not keep up with RAW video and would only be able to store a couple of minutes of it even if they did.
This is not about a manufacturer crippling a camera, it is about a manufacturer creating a usable product with the technology available at the time, and by available I mean for the intended audience. Even today, only the top of the line (at $300 a pop) memory cards can keep up with the RAW video stream.
No, they are not. There are many reasons this was not enabled on the original camera, but let's take a look at some of them.
This is not today usable to anyone but the most hard-core video enthusiasts. Think about it. This is raw video. The recommended cards to use are 1000x cards (which were not available at the time and quite expensive today). You should have 64G cards or bigger in order to put more than a couple of minutes worth of video on the card. Then you need to post-process what is basically a bunch of images. After Effects is not something the average user has. Also, the camera doesn't have microphone input, so there is no way you can get audio in the video from the camera. Etc, and so forth.
This is for movie makers who are happy bringing dozens of CF cards at $300 a pop on a shoot. Most people doesn't spend $3000 on a camera, let alone 10 compact flash cars so they can shoot for an hour.
Not for our species necessarily, though. Or for our economies even
Irrelevant considering the topic.
Quick changes ARE negative to life as such
This is not given, and according to ice-core data, earlier changes have also been quite quick, without the negative impact predicted in this discussion.
we're right in the middle of a major extinction event and everything points at one species being the driver of it -- us
Yes, we make species extinct by killing them, destroying their habitat through agricultural expansion etc. What does that have to do with this discussion? Please note, the links between species going extinct and global warming are actually non-existent. There is some research that would imply that at a local level, some animals go extinct from that area, but there is nothing to indicate a general extinction event tied to global warming.
Again, look at previous warming periods, even periods where cold-blooded animals were in the majority (lizards, dinosaurs) and you will find that higher temperatures, more CO2 and more humidity means higher bio diversity. Also look at the current state of the earth. The places receiving the most sun - the equator - is the areas with the highest bio diversity (rain forests). These places are not the driest because the high amount of incoming heat generates high levels of moisture.
Good to see that the religious nuts (that is you) are out in force again. Sorry, but what you say simply doesn't match observed realities. In the past, when CO2 levels have been substantially higher than they are today, and higher than the predictions for AGW too, life thrived on this planet. In fact, in volume and diversity, it did a lot better than it currently is.
Yes, there is no doubt that the predicted warming will cause many issues for human kind, and it will even be traumatic for a good number of species tied to current habitats (but they will adapt quickly), there is no reason to think that the warming will be generally negative to life as such. Quite the opposite. When the earth warms it is far more likely that the earth, as was the case before, becomes a better place for life as such.
To argue otherwise is to argue against observations, and it will take a lot of very, very strong evidence to argue that the next warm period is going to have a significantly different impact on life as such than the previous ones. There simply isn't any evidence for that.
At this point in time - keep them segregated from society if they are dangerous, otherwise, help them live as normally as possible and accept the fact that some people are just different.
You are correct about the diagnosis accuracy. I worked during my studying years, in a mental institution. The reality is that if you send a patient to four different doctors the patient is going to come back with five or more mutually exclusive diagnosis. Psychology is less accurate than astrology.
We don't know what's going to happen, we've never been there before
Depending on what you mean by "we" this is inaccurate. If you mean "we" as in "you and I" then you are correct, if you mean "we" as "planet earth and the life on it" you are wrong. For "us" in that definition, 400 isn't uncommon or particularly high.
You should look at that map once again. Find the equator. Look at where the deserts are. See? They are nowhere near the equator. Deserts are not caused by heat, they are caused by dry climates. Hot == wet. Cold == dry. The biggest desert on this planet is called Antarctica.
Actually: Cold == dry == arid, warm == wet == quite nice conditions. Oh, and no, our deserts are not deserts because of the heat, they are deserts because of the humidity level (see weather systems).
If life hasn't adapted to live in the desert in millions of years, how will it adapt now
This may be counter-intuitive to some, but still:
Cold == dry == desertification
Warm == humid == more plant life (both through the humidity and through the increase in CO2
Just FYI, Win8 now is on track to having about the same adoption rate as Windows XP did, probably a little higher, and we all know what happened to that flop.
I don't know what part of the world you live in, but it appears to be limited to the inside of the walls of your house. Dark chocolate with sea salt is amazing. Salt with chocolate has been popular all over the world (or the parts that have access to chocolate) for a long time.
Then again, not everybody likes real chocolate either and stick with what they get in the candy store, which has only a theoretical connection to chocolate.
Slashdot Mirror
And if you want to reduce CO2 emissions, it's a two-step process. First you have to get electric cars
Not true. Electrical cars will not reduce CO2 emissions with a reliably measurable amount. 2-3% theoretical percentage points at most.
then you need to get better power plants
This is where you start. This is where you work hard, and once you have solved this, you have solved the CO2 emission problem. Nothing else really matters. Go nuclear and we're all OK. It's safe (yes, it is) and it is quite clean (except for the mines). It is not renewable though, so it is a stop-gap measure.
That is good. For the two billionth time. Sadly, the thing they do not take into consideration is the following: Moving the entire world fleet of gasoline and diesel personal vehicles to electrical (for fun, lets assume it's possible to make the switch entirely pollution free) will have a statistical negligeble effect on the total CO2 emissions, since personal cars emit less than 10%, closer to 5% of the total human-produced CO2, and though a Tesla emits less CO2 than an SUV, it doesn't emit significantly less CO2 than a regular car, so total reduction in CO2 is negligeble and irrelevant.
Talking about what to do with our personal vehicles to reduce CO2 emissions is like talking about how to reduce the number of joggers, runners, athletes and other high-CO2 emitters. It's just dumb. Personal transportation emits some 5-7% of all CO2. Cutting it in half (which will probably not happen with electrical cars outside of places like Norway - all hydro powered) will not produce a reliably measurable drop in CO2 emissions. Any environmentalist or politician who talks about doing something about personal transportation do solve the CO2 problem is a blithering idiot and can safely be ignored.
Here is another question for you to ponder:
The answer to the first is, no, it won't. The answer to the second is, probably not, unless we get better at calculating averages over such a huge volume as the worlds entire atmosphere.
If electrical cars are the answer, the question was never "How can we reduce human CO2 emissions?" It might have been "How can we feel better about our self without doing a damned thing about the problem?"
The motor vehicle fleet produces (upper limits) about 15% of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Of that, the private (personal as opposed to professional transportation) is about 40-60% or so. So, perhaps 7% of CO2 emissions are from what people think of as cars, the stuff that is targeted by the mindless, uneducated morons we have put in power. So, electrical cars are possibly more efficient than SUVs, but they are not terribly more efficient than a regular car (Honda Accord seemingly). So, the savings in emissions by turning the car fleet into electrical vehicles - which can only be gotten from the 7%, I don't see Tesla Buses coming any time soon, is quite low. In fact, turning the entire worlds car park from gas guzzlers to Tesla Model S's would have something of a statistically insignificant impact on the total CO2 emissions.
Why, if changing the entire world fleet of personal cars into electircal vehicles will have no measurable impact on CO2 emissions, are all the environmental nuts yacking about this? Should they/you not be yacknig about something that can make an actual difference?
Because you are fairly computer literate. Most people are not. When desktops were the norm, people thought the case was called "the CPU". Most people don't know the difference between a running program and its data. Most people have never heard of, let alone read or post to /. You are not "most people". You are just a retarded nerd.
You have no clue what "most people" even mean, do you? Most people are fuzzy on the difference between a program and its data. Most people don't know H.264 from DV-AVI. Most people can, given some training, grasp iMovie or Windows Movie Maker, and that's it. Most people never use an external microphone when recording video of their kids playing in the garden or swimming in the pool. Most people (in the western world) have video recording capabilities, and statistically none of them use anything else than the built in microphone to record sound with their video.
Personally I use mostly a Zoom h4n, but I am not most people. I also use PocketWizards and multiple speedlights when doing flash photography. The vast majority of the population uses either the built-in flash or a separate flash mounted on the camera.
Now, shut the fuck up and learn how to read.
Wow, you really are a moron, are you not? Virtualdub is for fairly advanced video editors. In other words, not most people. Most people would doubleclick the movie file and not have a clue what to do when it didn't play.
That's why I didn't say "what most professional or highly advanced enthusiasts are willing to do", I said "most people". "Most people" never even get a proper microphone for their camcorder.
Sigh. Yeah, 'cause Virtual Dub is what the average user installs first when he gets a computer. Please take context into consideration. "You can't even" doesn't mean "You as a person can't even", think "One can't...". Again. Context.
I totally agree, and the audio was not my point. The fact that Canon didn't cripple these on purpose was.
Translated, that means the camera already has the hardware required for the task
No, it doesn't. The video captured with a hacked 50D is not usable as is. You can't even watch it on a computer. Also, back then, it would not have been possible to make this hack work since there were no memory cards that would be able to store more than a few seconds (just over two in fact, at 24fps) of video. What do you think Canon customers would have said if the Canon 50D commercial had said:
Buy the 50D and make video with your DSLR. You can record almost three seconds of video before it stops for a while writing to the CF card. You will be able to record up to 3-5 minutes of video in two second burts to your memory card, so bring a lot of memory cards to the wedding. Oh, and btw, the video can not be watched on the camera nor on any TV or computer known to man. After having shot the video you will need to import the video to your computer, then import it into Adobe After Effects (part of the Adobe CS2 package at $2000 or so) for color grading (which is required) and rendering to video. Your two second bursts are sure to be a winner at the after-wedding party if the party is set about a week or so after the wedding.
The camera wasn't crippled at all. It was built very well, but some of the components can today be used differently when upgrading the software. Providing you have hardware plugged into the camera that is available today but that was not available when the camera was released. Oh, and remember, the camera doesn't actually shoot video, it stores a sequence of images that you can import to a powerful computer equipped with specialized software to make a movie from. None of what you have seen was captured by the camera alone.
with a still competitive specification
Not even close to a competitive specification in relation to this discussion. The camera doesn't have a microphone. Shooting video with no sound is not something most people are willing to do. Also, at the time of the camera release, DSLR video was not close to as practical as it is today. The on-board chip would not have been able to encode H.264 at a pace required to store on the CF cards at the time. RAW video would have been unthinkable since the CF cards of the time could not keep up with RAW video and would only be able to store a couple of minutes of it even if they did.
This is not about a manufacturer crippling a camera, it is about a manufacturer creating a usable product with the technology available at the time, and by available I mean for the intended audience. Even today, only the top of the line (at $300 a pop) memory cards can keep up with the RAW video stream.
No, they are not. There are many reasons this was not enabled on the original camera, but let's take a look at some of them.
This is not today usable to anyone but the most hard-core video enthusiasts. Think about it. This is raw video. The recommended cards to use are 1000x cards (which were not available at the time and quite expensive today). You should have 64G cards or bigger in order to put more than a couple of minutes worth of video on the card. Then you need to post-process what is basically a bunch of images. After Effects is not something the average user has. Also, the camera doesn't have microphone input, so there is no way you can get audio in the video from the camera. Etc, and so forth.
This is for movie makers who are happy bringing dozens of CF cards at $300 a pop on a shoot. Most people doesn't spend $3000 on a camera, let alone 10 compact flash cars so they can shoot for an hour.
Upload video to edit? Are you shitting me?
You implied that increase in temperature == arid and dry, which is not the case.
Not for our species necessarily, though. Or for our economies even
Irrelevant considering the topic.
Quick changes ARE negative to life as such
This is not given, and according to ice-core data, earlier changes have also been quite quick, without the negative impact predicted in this discussion.
we're right in the middle of a major extinction event and everything points at one species being the driver of it -- us
Yes, we make species extinct by killing them, destroying their habitat through agricultural expansion etc. What does that have to do with this discussion? Please note, the links between species going extinct and global warming are actually non-existent. There is some research that would imply that at a local level, some animals go extinct from that area, but there is nothing to indicate a general extinction event tied to global warming.
Again, look at previous warming periods, even periods where cold-blooded animals were in the majority (lizards, dinosaurs) and you will find that higher temperatures, more CO2 and more humidity means higher bio diversity. Also look at the current state of the earth. The places receiving the most sun - the equator - is the areas with the highest bio diversity (rain forests). These places are not the driest because the high amount of incoming heat generates high levels of moisture.
Good to see that the religious nuts (that is you) are out in force again. Sorry, but what you say simply doesn't match observed realities. In the past, when CO2 levels have been substantially higher than they are today, and higher than the predictions for AGW too, life thrived on this planet. In fact, in volume and diversity, it did a lot better than it currently is.
Yes, there is no doubt that the predicted warming will cause many issues for human kind, and it will even be traumatic for a good number of species tied to current habitats (but they will adapt quickly), there is no reason to think that the warming will be generally negative to life as such. Quite the opposite. When the earth warms it is far more likely that the earth, as was the case before, becomes a better place for life as such.
To argue otherwise is to argue against observations, and it will take a lot of very, very strong evidence to argue that the next warm period is going to have a significantly different impact on life as such than the previous ones. There simply isn't any evidence for that.
What the hell else do you do?
At this point in time - keep them segregated from society if they are dangerous, otherwise, help them live as normally as possible and accept the fact that some people are just different.
You are correct about the diagnosis accuracy. I worked during my studying years, in a mental institution. The reality is that if you send a patient to four different doctors the patient is going to come back with five or more mutually exclusive diagnosis. Psychology is less accurate than astrology.
We don't know what's going to happen, we've never been there before
Depending on what you mean by "we" this is inaccurate. If you mean "we" as in "you and I" then you are correct, if you mean "we" as "planet earth and the life on it" you are wrong. For "us" in that definition, 400 isn't uncommon or particularly high.
You should look at that map once again. Find the equator. Look at where the deserts are. See? They are nowhere near the equator. Deserts are not caused by heat, they are caused by dry climates. Hot == wet. Cold == dry. The biggest desert on this planet is called Antarctica.
arid conditions
Actually: Cold == dry == arid, warm == wet == quite nice conditions. Oh, and no, our deserts are not deserts because of the heat, they are deserts because of the humidity level (see weather systems).
If life hasn't adapted to live in the desert in millions of years, how will it adapt now
This may be counter-intuitive to some, but still:
Cold == dry == desertification
Warm == humid == more plant life (both through the humidity and through the increase in CO2
Just FYI, Win8 now is on track to having about the same adoption rate as Windows XP did, probably a little higher, and we all know what happened to that flop.
I don't know what part of the world you live in, but it appears to be limited to the inside of the walls of your house. Dark chocolate with sea salt is amazing. Salt with chocolate has been popular all over the world (or the parts that have access to chocolate) for a long time.
Then again, not everybody likes real chocolate either and stick with what they get in the candy store, which has only a theoretical connection to chocolate.