As Dubai is rich enough to pay to process it there then why not to pay for it to be processed elsewhere (and no mention was made of somewhere bitter cold in my post). You're going to have to process it from ice to water somewhere so there's no additional cost. As to icebergs being a feasible model, exactly how feasible vs something like tankers. Let's play a game: How many icebergs have been moved half way across the globe so far vs how many thousands of tankers are there constantly moving liquids about the globe.
Y'all need to talk to the people that cause the problem, not scream at some guy in Nebraska who probably recycles plastic anyhow.
The issue with this world view is that unless you have more to offer than talk how exactly do you expect to persuade poorer nations to change? The west got rich while creating massive pollution (and in many cases still pollutes more per person than countries like China). You can talk to them all you like, but they want to get wealthy to and a nation that already got wealthy while polluting telling them they need to do it differently isn't exactly persuasive. Now you could offer financial incentives so that nations that have already done a lot of polluting provide financial aid to help other countries avoid doing the same, but how popular do you think it would be if politicians were talking about giving billions to other nations to fund a decrease in environmental damage? Especially in the current climate where the leader of the biggest polluter per capita is decreasing regulation to protect the environment.
Unless you have some cunning plan or insight into why the world is going to quickly and massively decrease the amount of plastic waste getting into the oceans then it isn't pointless. This idea isn't going to get anywhere close to removing all the plastic from the Ocean's but it's naive to think that action is pointless unless it completely solves the issue when there is no plausible way the issue will be completely solved.
Multiple ships towing an iceberg of this size multiple thousands of miles... belching carbon into our atmosphere.... this sounds like a horrible idea. How about instead we don't build enormous cities in deserts. And accelerating the melting of the iceberg will raise sea levels that much faster.
If you're idea was any better than explain why it hasn't already been done; as it hasn't I think you're making the mistake of thinking that an idea is a good one regardless of the fact there is literally no chance of any consensus to implement it. It's like the people with 3+ children who argue we should be looking at population control... exactly how credible do they think they appear if they don't even buy into it themselves.
Apparently, iceberg towing away from things (oil rigs, mostly) is pretty routine, and mature technology. Towing them to somewhere is a difference in scale only.
What seems odd to me about the whole concept is why tow it all the way even if you did want the water. Surely it'd be easier to tow it to either the nearest landmass and convert it to water there before shipping it on, or design something to convert it to water at sea and then use tankers to get the water from there to the destination? It's not like an iceberg will just jump out of the sea and turn into water in Dubai without some infrastructure there otherwise. The less time you have it in warm water before processing the less melts on the way.
No they didn't. Even if you take the view that the original 'luddites' was in any way anti-technological rather than machines being easy targets for people unhappy with general conditions, then the group were widely understood to oppose the implementation of technology that increased productivity and the perceived negative impact on their incomes. It's ridiculous to claim that supporting or opposing luddites is a required characteristic to be a geek.
This isn't about self-control. It is about controlling others, which is a near universal human desire.
It always has been and it isn't a black and white bad thing. Manners are an example of society trying to control individuals to some extent. I assume in this case the issue isn't that they don't want people to be unable to use electronics but that they don't want there enjoyment of a natural environment to be marred by dodgy ringtones, incessant selfie taking etc; which I can empathise with.
Raise your hand if you think Trump is not going to peacefully pass the presidency to the next duly elected president or try to dismantle Congress or the Supreme Court.
Fortunately he isn't competent enough and doesn't appear to have the influence and time to manage something like that in one term. Does he strike me as the sort of person who would do that if he could and was motivated to do so? Genuinely, I absolutely believe he would. Trump doesn't care about anything beyond blind loyalty to Trump.
Ideally, the doors would be on a physically distinct network
Ideally, they wouldn't be on any network at all if you fixate only on theoretical security threats... but in the real world both your suggestion and this was have passed well beyond the point where the inconvenience exceeds to the additional security benefit. If you can compromise VLAN security to the extent that you could directly access and exploit an access control unit you could almost certainly do the same thing to access and compromise far more valuable things.
Bad risk analysis. If there's no risk to the manager if he losses $10k speculating on crypto then there's almost certainly no risk in just paying her through any other method (which is likely simpler and quicker to set up and manage). You can't justify bitcoin on the basis that it might save you $100 a year in fees in a situation where the risk of losing 100x that is negligible.
It is better than real money for anonymous transactions, such as buying drugs, or funding an off shore gambling account.
This is said a lot but I'm really not sure how accurate it works out in practice. Sure it's anonymous enough if you're buying the odd ounce of weed, but then so is cash and any number of physical items that could be bartered. The difference with Bitcoin is that if any single transaction gives away (or can be used to narrow down enough) who you are then all your other transactions are compromised as well (something that isn't true of cash real money). Yes, you can use multiple accounts and various other security methods but how consistently people do in practice without any mistakes is likely a different story.
Given that you couldn't understand the "simplistic" polyphonic sentence you replied to (hint: they didn't deride anything) I'm astounded if you achieve much understanding in any "more advanced" language.
Would you care to reference when he said that? Regardless, I'd suggest being more aware of your own bias because he certainly isn't universally despised and believing that is a pretty good sign that you need to get out of your own echo chamber for some perspective.
To be fair to the person you are responding to, the way the summary is written is pretty clearly about them making the right choice personally not the right choice for us as a society. I'm happy to argue the case for more humanities and the benefits they bring, but that doesn't mean that someone making a personal decision to go for a more reliably lucrative degree isn't making the 'right decision' for themselves.
Well your skills certainly do need sharpening so keep trying. Once you move on from understanding false correlation you can step up to understanding that this doesn't mean all correlation is false, and then we can move onto why pointing out that the concept of false correlation exists is not, in fact, evidence of any specific claim of correlation being false. It always depresses me when I see examples on a relatively technical site like this of people's ignorance in an area leading them to massively underestimate the complexity of it and of the knowledge applied by people who aren't as ignorant as them.
Have you got a source for your claim that more people are still using Win 7? the latest sources I am aware of, statcounter, shows Win 10 as the most used windows version every month since the beginning of this year with WIn 10 having 8% higher market share. Given WIn 10 use has increased 10% YoY and Win 7 use has decreased by 7% YoY, which makes it a reasonable estimate that within a year Win 10 will have ~25% more market share than Win 7.
If we are going to be cited in an article that make claims like this, Professor Brian Thomas had better understand and produce some convincing evidence and be directly involved in the project.
Says the AC providing no evidence, let alone convincing evidence, and with no link to the project; but I'm sure your rant is going to be far more persuasive than the backing of a biology professor who has been doing research on environmental impacts on plants for over a decade, and who to quote his university profile "Current work involves a study of water and nutrient use efficiency in Brassica and wheat at ambient and elevated CO2 levels."
Do you believe a thing you say or are you just being obstinate? The only likely cause of ongoing increases is CO2 emissions so it's pointless pedantry to complain about using the term climate change. However, that minor quibble is nothing compared to the astounding nonsense of your second statement. Over a billion people are zinc deficient, I don't care what definition of trivial you believe in, but if you really do think solving that would be trivial and you aren't up in arms about the fact it hasn't been done then what's wrong with you.
This is an issue, but it's a different issue than what Trump is saying. This ranking crap gives too much power to the media.
Firstly just because the media are writing negative things about him it doesn't mean there is a problem; you won't find many positive stories about natural disasters, rapes, bank fraud either because it isn't the job of the media to make coverage of anything equally positive/negative.
Secondly, even if you put aside the question of whether there is an issue with the media Trump's compliant is that it's negative press for him that is showing, and he wants media outlets with more positive coverage to be more visible. Just about any sane analysis would back the argument that the media he wants listing higher is less truthful than the media he dislikes. Thus you can't use his point as a critique of truth in the media, it's a blatant attack on any reporting that isn't positive.
Finally, the argument you make about the media getting too much power and the impacts you list are equally if not more applicable to Trump's use of Twitter as capably demonstrated by the very story we are commenting on. Trump loves Twitter because amongst other reasons he can say whatever he wants directly with no one being able to validate or add comment before publication. The sheer volume of things that he says on there that are provably false removes any credibility he has when complaining about the accuracy of the media.
Tell me: why is the United States the only country asked which did NOT agree to the Paris Accord, yet it is also the only country of all of them to reduce CO2 emissions? Chew on that one for a while.
It might have taken some mulling over for you, but people familiar with the area will already know the answer is 1) the massive increase in shale gas production and use and 2) the general trend for more cost effective energy efficient devices has a particularly large impact when you start from an extreme high.
Also, the UK which did sign the paris accord decreased CO2 emissions by around 22% between 2012 and 2017 meaning it's emissions are lower than anytime since the great depression.
The average starting salary for a 2017 college grad is just a smidge under $50,000 ($49,785, to be exact), the study indicates. That’s up 3% from last year. After adjusting for inflation, the average pay for new college grads is 14% higher than it was for the graduating class of 2007—before the Great Recession decimated earnings for many categories of workers. While there are different ways of measuring pay, Korn Ferry stated that “average salaries for 2017 grads are at an all-time high.”
The article does go on to point out that inflation adjusted salaries from the late 60s were higher, but not that they have ever been in nominal terms. Do you have a source for your claim that graduates earned the same nominal income 15 years ago?
Wind turbines are highly recyclable and have well understood decommissioning costs so the money can be put in escrow.
I am glad we're generating more wind power but I read two things recently that there's actually a recycling problem with turbines because the materials used for the blades are often impractical to recycle composites, and that there's concerns parts of the US could be littered with old decommissioned turbines because the land owner may decide it isn't worth the cost of taking them down when they stop being profitable to run. Neither of these points stop me supporting wind power, and apologies that I can't recall the source.
It really isn't; the difference should be pretty obvious unless you can't differentiate between the value you are willing to pay and more common or widely accepted definitions.
Are you seriously suggesting that the hotel has fucked up by checking, while at the same time saying they fucked up when they didn't do checks and something negative happened in the past?
The response seems like an ass covering measure. Sure the guy had a ridiculous number of guns, but if if he'd had two or three would that have meant he couldn't have killed a load of people as easily? He probably didn't have the guns hidden very well, but had he expected searches would it have been hard to hide guns and enough ammo to kill dozens of people?
Slashdot Mirror
As Dubai is rich enough to pay to process it there then why not to pay for it to be processed elsewhere (and no mention was made of somewhere bitter cold in my post). You're going to have to process it from ice to water somewhere so there's no additional cost. As to icebergs being a feasible model, exactly how feasible vs something like tankers. Let's play a game: How many icebergs have been moved half way across the globe so far vs how many thousands of tankers are there constantly moving liquids about the globe.
The issue with this world view is that unless you have more to offer than talk how exactly do you expect to persuade poorer nations to change? The west got rich while creating massive pollution (and in many cases still pollutes more per person than countries like China). You can talk to them all you like, but they want to get wealthy to and a nation that already got wealthy while polluting telling them they need to do it differently isn't exactly persuasive. Now you could offer financial incentives so that nations that have already done a lot of polluting provide financial aid to help other countries avoid doing the same, but how popular do you think it would be if politicians were talking about giving billions to other nations to fund a decrease in environmental damage? Especially in the current climate where the leader of the biggest polluter per capita is decreasing regulation to protect the environment.
Unless you have some cunning plan or insight into why the world is going to quickly and massively decrease the amount of plastic waste getting into the oceans then it isn't pointless. This idea isn't going to get anywhere close to removing all the plastic from the Ocean's but it's naive to think that action is pointless unless it completely solves the issue when there is no plausible way the issue will be completely solved.
If you're idea was any better than explain why it hasn't already been done; as it hasn't I think you're making the mistake of thinking that an idea is a good one regardless of the fact there is literally no chance of any consensus to implement it. It's like the people with 3+ children who argue we should be looking at population control... exactly how credible do they think they appear if they don't even buy into it themselves.
What seems odd to me about the whole concept is why tow it all the way even if you did want the water. Surely it'd be easier to tow it to either the nearest landmass and convert it to water there before shipping it on, or design something to convert it to water at sea and then use tankers to get the water from there to the destination? It's not like an iceberg will just jump out of the sea and turn into water in Dubai without some infrastructure there otherwise. The less time you have it in warm water before processing the less melts on the way.
No they didn't. Even if you take the view that the original 'luddites' was in any way anti-technological rather than machines being easy targets for people unhappy with general conditions, then the group were widely understood to oppose the implementation of technology that increased productivity and the perceived negative impact on their incomes. It's ridiculous to claim that supporting or opposing luddites is a required characteristic to be a geek.
It always has been and it isn't a black and white bad thing. Manners are an example of society trying to control individuals to some extent. I assume in this case the issue isn't that they don't want people to be unable to use electronics but that they don't want there enjoyment of a natural environment to be marred by dodgy ringtones, incessant selfie taking etc; which I can empathise with.
Fortunately he isn't competent enough and doesn't appear to have the influence and time to manage something like that in one term. Does he strike me as the sort of person who would do that if he could and was motivated to do so? Genuinely, I absolutely believe he would. Trump doesn't care about anything beyond blind loyalty to Trump.
Ideally, they wouldn't be on any network at all if you fixate only on theoretical security threats... but in the real world both your suggestion and this was have passed well beyond the point where the inconvenience exceeds to the additional security benefit. If you can compromise VLAN security to the extent that you could directly access and exploit an access control unit you could almost certainly do the same thing to access and compromise far more valuable things.
Bad risk analysis. If there's no risk to the manager if he losses $10k speculating on crypto then there's almost certainly no risk in just paying her through any other method (which is likely simpler and quicker to set up and manage). You can't justify bitcoin on the basis that it might save you $100 a year in fees in a situation where the risk of losing 100x that is negligible.
This is said a lot but I'm really not sure how accurate it works out in practice. Sure it's anonymous enough if you're buying the odd ounce of weed, but then so is cash and any number of physical items that could be bartered. The difference with Bitcoin is that if any single transaction gives away (or can be used to narrow down enough) who you are then all your other transactions are compromised as well (something that isn't true of cash real money). Yes, you can use multiple accounts and various other security methods but how consistently people do in practice without any mistakes is likely a different story.
Given that you couldn't understand the "simplistic" polyphonic sentence you replied to (hint: they didn't deride anything) I'm astounded if you achieve much understanding in any "more advanced" language.
Would you care to reference when he said that? Regardless, I'd suggest being more aware of your own bias because he certainly isn't universally despised and believing that is a pretty good sign that you need to get out of your own echo chamber for some perspective.
To be fair to the person you are responding to, the way the summary is written is pretty clearly about them making the right choice personally not the right choice for us as a society. I'm happy to argue the case for more humanities and the benefits they bring, but that doesn't mean that someone making a personal decision to go for a more reliably lucrative degree isn't making the 'right decision' for themselves.
So no evidence to back your ascertains and a handful of puerile diatribes... very persuasive.
Well your skills certainly do need sharpening so keep trying. Once you move on from understanding false correlation you can step up to understanding that this doesn't mean all correlation is false, and then we can move onto why pointing out that the concept of false correlation exists is not, in fact, evidence of any specific claim of correlation being false. It always depresses me when I see examples on a relatively technical site like this of people's ignorance in an area leading them to massively underestimate the complexity of it and of the knowledge applied by people who aren't as ignorant as them.
Have you got a source for your claim that more people are still using Win 7? the latest sources I am aware of, statcounter, shows Win 10 as the most used windows version every month since the beginning of this year with WIn 10 having 8% higher market share. Given WIn 10 use has increased 10% YoY and Win 7 use has decreased by 7% YoY, which makes it a reasonable estimate that within a year Win 10 will have ~25% more market share than Win 7.
Says the AC providing no evidence, let alone convincing evidence, and with no link to the project; but I'm sure your rant is going to be far more persuasive than the backing of a biology professor who has been doing research on environmental impacts on plants for over a decade, and who to quote his university profile "Current work involves a study of water and nutrient use efficiency in Brassica and wheat at ambient and elevated CO2 levels."
Do you believe a thing you say or are you just being obstinate? The only likely cause of ongoing increases is CO2 emissions so it's pointless pedantry to complain about using the term climate change. However, that minor quibble is nothing compared to the astounding nonsense of your second statement. Over a billion people are zinc deficient, I don't care what definition of trivial you believe in, but if you really do think solving that would be trivial and you aren't up in arms about the fact it hasn't been done then what's wrong with you.
Firstly just because the media are writing negative things about him it doesn't mean there is a problem; you won't find many positive stories about natural disasters, rapes, bank fraud either because it isn't the job of the media to make coverage of anything equally positive/negative.
Secondly, even if you put aside the question of whether there is an issue with the media Trump's compliant is that it's negative press for him that is showing, and he wants media outlets with more positive coverage to be more visible. Just about any sane analysis would back the argument that the media he wants listing higher is less truthful than the media he dislikes. Thus you can't use his point as a critique of truth in the media, it's a blatant attack on any reporting that isn't positive.
Finally, the argument you make about the media getting too much power and the impacts you list are equally if not more applicable to Trump's use of Twitter as capably demonstrated by the very story we are commenting on. Trump loves Twitter because amongst other reasons he can say whatever he wants directly with no one being able to validate or add comment before publication. The sheer volume of things that he says on there that are provably false removes any credibility he has when complaining about the accuracy of the media.
It might have taken some mulling over for you, but people familiar with the area will already know the answer is 1) the massive increase in shale gas production and use and 2) the general trend for more cost effective energy efficient devices has a particularly large impact when you start from an extreme high.
Also, the UK which did sign the paris accord decreased CO2 emissions by around 22% between 2012 and 2017 meaning it's emissions are lower than anytime since the great depression.
http://time.com/money/4777074/college-grad-pay-2017-average-salary/
The article does go on to point out that inflation adjusted salaries from the late 60s were higher, but not that they have ever been in nominal terms. Do you have a source for your claim that graduates earned the same nominal income 15 years ago?
I am glad we're generating more wind power but I read two things recently that there's actually a recycling problem with turbines because the materials used for the blades are often impractical to recycle composites, and that there's concerns parts of the US could be littered with old decommissioned turbines because the land owner may decide it isn't worth the cost of taking them down when they stop being profitable to run. Neither of these points stop me supporting wind power, and apologies that I can't recall the source.
It really isn't; the difference should be pretty obvious unless you can't differentiate between the value you are willing to pay and more common or widely accepted definitions.
Are you seriously suggesting that the hotel has fucked up by checking, while at the same time saying they fucked up when they didn't do checks and something negative happened in the past?
The response seems like an ass covering measure. Sure the guy had a ridiculous number of guns, but if if he'd had two or three would that have meant he couldn't have killed a load of people as easily? He probably didn't have the guns hidden very well, but had he expected searches would it have been hard to hide guns and enough ammo to kill dozens of people?