There seems to be a widespread assumption that renewables merely means solar PV and wind turbines. The following can either offset energy use or provide on demand power:
Concentrated Solar Power Tidal Lagoons Geothermal Electricity, Geothermal Heating, Residential heat pumps Hydro Power, Pumped Hydro Biomass
Using Solar PV and Wind energy should save billions going forward, those savings should be put towards R&D into the above mentioned sources of energy.
Individually some of the above types of power are not as cheap as coal is gas is currently, but going forwards, using 100% renewables with a good mix of solutions will easily end up costing a lot less than the old conventional power methods.
The vulnerability in OLE, or Microsoft Windows Object Linking and Embedding, enables a hacker to remotely execute code on an infected machine,
100% wrong, the exploit is of the trojan type and needs either code to be run by a user or an MS Office document to be opened locally before the machine is pwned.
Why do countries allow tax avoidance anyway, the only difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion is a couple of fictitious legal documents.
It is time that the tax man gets to decide whether these fictitious external companies are actually part and parcel of the same company and were merely created for the purpose of tax avoidance/evasion.
No, the tax is on profits so why are you even asking this question?
Is it best that companies do avoid taxes?
Counter question is: Do gov't services need to be paid for?
Why are you asking such stupid questions?
Republicans shrink gov't! When did they last do that? I don't see what the Democrat/Republican duopoly has to do with the issue of corp's paying taxes.
If companies don't wish to pay taxes in country X then they shouldn't have employees, services or products in country X.
Companies that don't pay tax should not get the use of the roads, emergency services etc.
People driving around in cars is only a tiny part of it.
Other poster has covered that "In total, the U.S. transportation sectorâ"which includes planes, trains, ships, and freightâ"produces around thirty percent of all U.S. global warming emissions."
Heavy industry, HVAC in homes and businesses - that's what does it. The solution is nukes or one form or another. Solar and wind can't put a dent in it
Explain to me how Solar PV is not well suited to supplying electricity for Air Conditioning. Seriously, it's a perfect match. It is also a good match for 9-5 businesses. Wind energy is so cheap now it'd be nuts not to take advantage of it. Solar is well on it's way to becoming the cheapest source of energy.
The French seem to of sorted it, see post #48303643 I've heard that the paint on boats and marine infrastructure is now polluting the oceans so I'm against paint that isn't biodegradable.
Personally I'm not keen on this system of dumping turbines into a bay, tidal lagoon and tidal barrier systems would surely reap far more power.
It seems that a large scale project is viable, with a conservative large insurance company investing in a tidal power scheme: UK Renewables May Be Turning The Tide
Large scheme, scalable to GW's of power, cheaper than off-shore wind, able to provide electricity on-demand, something that solar and wind aren't so good at.
And of course the depth of the area the turbine is being put in is a major factor, unlike wind turbines which keep getting bigger and higher. I'm just impatient, I get sick of hearing about sub 100MW renewable energy projects, ramp it up already!
, a 5 knot ocean current has more kinetic energy than a 350 km/h wind.
. If each Hammerfest machine delivers its advertised 1MW of power,
With such large amounts of energy why oh why are they pissing about with such tiny turbines? Modern wind turbines are 6MW+, some hydro power turbines are over 700MW each. Are they trying to destroy the financial viability of the project with unimaginative small scale thinking?
Every underwater generation scheme is toasted by the life problem. None of them are tolerant of all the sea life that will grow on and around the facility.
And that's why ocean going super-tankers where never possible.(sarc'). Doesn't stop the Thames Barrier and Dams/hydro power across the world does it.
What do you do when the entire underwater "windmill" is covered in barnacles?
There's been times were the forecast for 30mins away was wrong. Half a million chips cant be cheap, I thought we were in a time of austerity, this clearly doesn't benefit the UK economy. Money would have been better spent in researching better methods of forecasting rather than trying and failing to brute force weather forecasting.
No matter how many people there are, with robots and AI only a fraction of them will need to work full weeks. A simple solution is to move to shorter working days and less working days per week with overtime mandatory at at least double pay.
Fuck off already, it's overcrowded here, the property values are already in a stupid bubble, why don't you go somewhere where the cost of living isn't insane and getting worse.
And that's why we steer clear of mobile phones, computers, digital watches and clocks, microwaves, cars, planes, xboxes, the internet ect, which has led to the lack of any tech industry in the US. Films attack technology because of the producers hatred of it and they stick to analogue film etc, CGI? what's that?
Really, what a stupid thing to say. There are some luddites, so what.
As fossil fuels rise in price renewables become more attractive, it won't be long before wind and solar energy are far far cheaper than coal and gas - think 2c per kWh electricity, and cheap hydrogen being made with that electricity when there is excess.
Energy is not a problem we need to worry about, it's recycling every thing else without polluting the planet to death which we need to avoid.
My impression is that he was reporting all fake names that he came across, definitely not just queens, but he found easy hunting grounds with queens. The article says he was also looking for innuendo names and cartoon character names because that was also easy.
I'm not against the womb transplant if it works, and I wouldn't deny medicine the chance to perfect the operation etc. Just against people having children that wouldn't be able to support themselves when they become adults. What would be wrong is if it was known that the woman with the transplant would give birth to a child also without a womb, but I'm guessing that's not the case.
re 1: After a bit of research, I'm starting to think that I was duped by some crap article in the past. A lot of disabilities are due to environmental factors such as smoking etc and half the time the cause is unknown, leaving only 20% of disabilities at birth being due to genetic inheritance, and disabilities at birth are a small percentage of the total.
But I still don't know now what the trend in disabilities at birth due to genetic inheritance is, got any links?
3) Is not a straw man argument, why should the 2 sperm that make it be allowed to live, they are no more special than the billions that didn't make it, in this particular case they are worse.
2) Shouldn't be having children that would not survive without car and can earn their keep in society.
1) Shout at me for not giving citation but didn't give citations yourself for your counter-argument. (I'm having a look, but I'm getting an ocean of results which don't answer the question either way).
Slashdot Mirror
There seems to be a widespread assumption that renewables merely means solar PV and wind turbines. The following can either offset energy use or provide on demand power:
Concentrated Solar Power
Tidal Lagoons
Geothermal Electricity,
Geothermal Heating,
Residential heat pumps
Hydro Power,
Pumped Hydro
Biomass
Using Solar PV and Wind energy should save billions going forward, those savings should be put towards R&D into the above mentioned sources of energy.
Individually some of the above types of power are not as cheap as coal is gas is currently, but going forwards, using 100% renewables with a good mix of solutions will easily end up costing a lot less than the old conventional power methods.
From the summary
100% wrong, the exploit is of the trojan type and needs either code to be run by a user or an MS Office document to be opened locally before the machine is pwned.
So, can anyone tell me why this does not apply?
Why do countries allow tax avoidance anyway, the only difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion is a couple of fictitious legal documents.
It is time that the tax man gets to decide whether these fictitious external companies are actually part and parcel of the same company and were merely created for the purpose of tax avoidance/evasion.
No, the tax is on profits so why are you even asking this question?
Counter question is: Do gov't services need to be paid for?
Why are you asking such stupid questions?
Republicans shrink gov't! When did they last do that? I don't see what the Democrat/Republican duopoly has to do with the issue of corp's paying taxes.
If companies don't wish to pay taxes in country X then they shouldn't have employees, services or products in country X.
Companies that don't pay tax should not get the use of the roads, emergency services etc.
Wrong on so many counts:
Other poster has covered that "In total, the U.S. transportation sectorâ"which includes planes, trains, ships, and freightâ"produces around thirty percent of all U.S. global warming emissions."
Explain to me how Solar PV is not well suited to supplying electricity for Air Conditioning. Seriously, it's a perfect match. It is also a good match for 9-5 businesses. Wind energy is so cheap now it'd be nuts not to take advantage of it. Solar is well on it's way to becoming the cheapest source of energy.
http://costofsolar.com/cost-of...
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/...
http://bxhorn.com/wp-content/u...
Completely wrong. Chinaâ(TM)s Coal Consumption Has Finally Decreased
I'm sorry but your facts have passed their use-by date.
The French seem to of sorted it, see post #48303643 I've heard that the paint on boats and marine infrastructure is now polluting the oceans so I'm against paint that isn't biodegradable.
Personally I'm not keen on this system of dumping turbines into a bay, tidal lagoon and tidal barrier systems would surely reap far more power.
For example: UK Renewables May Be Turning The Tide
It seems that a large scale project is viable, with a conservative large insurance company investing in a tidal power scheme:
UK Renewables May Be Turning The Tide
Large scheme, scalable to GW's of power, cheaper than off-shore wind, able to provide electricity on-demand, something that solar and wind aren't so good at.
And of course the depth of the area the turbine is being put in is a major factor, unlike wind turbines which keep getting bigger and higher. I'm just impatient, I get sick of hearing about sub 100MW renewable energy projects, ramp it up already!
With such large amounts of energy why oh why are they pissing about with such tiny turbines? Modern wind turbines are 6MW+, some hydro power turbines are over 700MW each. Are they trying to destroy the financial viability of the project with unimaginative small scale thinking?
And that's why ocean going super-tankers where never possible.(sarc'). Doesn't stop the Thames Barrier and Dams/hydro power across the world does it.
How about: Clean them off.
There's been times were the forecast for 30mins away was wrong. Half a million chips cant be cheap, I thought we were in a time of austerity, this clearly doesn't benefit the UK economy. Money would have been better spent in researching better methods of forecasting rather than trying and failing to brute force weather forecasting.
You obviously haven't thought about it much.
In the future it could take:
1,000,000,000 to provide for 8,000,000,000
or
10,000,000 to provide for 80,000,000
No matter how many people there are, with robots and AI only a fraction of them will need to work full weeks. A simple solution is to move to shorter working days and less working days per week with overtime mandatory at at least double pay.
The level of population is a separate matter.
Fuck off already, it's overcrowded here, the property values are already in a stupid bubble, why don't you go somewhere where the cost of living isn't insane and getting worse.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-...
"the typical cost per individual employee of renting somewhere to live and leasing office space to $120,000 (£73,800) a year."[in London]
But half of these employees are getting little more than minimum wage, whilst the city leaches pull the average wage up.
And that's why we steer clear of mobile phones, computers, digital watches and clocks, microwaves, cars, planes, xboxes, the internet ect, which has led to the lack of any tech industry in the US. Films attack technology because of the producers hatred of it and they stick to analogue film etc, CGI? what's that?
Really, what a stupid thing to say. There are some luddites, so what.
As fossil fuels rise in price renewables become more attractive, it won't be long before wind and solar energy are far far cheaper than coal and gas - think 2c per kWh electricity, and cheap hydrogen being made with that electricity when there is excess.
Energy is not a problem we need to worry about, it's recycling every thing else without polluting the planet to death which we need to avoid.
They are most certainly ignoring solar.
Solar potential:
http://media.theweek.com/img/g...
And I agree about the breeding bit, the Chinese were doing it right for a while, shame they stopped.
1. You don't need to use as much energy as Americans to lead a modern lifestyle, here in Europe we use a fraction of the amount per capita.
2. That's irrelevant anyway because there's a giant fusion reactor in the sky which can provide 1000x more than we need.
So, the premise is wrong - that there is limited energy, so the conclusion is naturally wrong too.
See diagram:
http://azizonomics.files.wordp...
My impression is that he was reporting all fake names that he came across, definitely not just queens, but he found easy hunting grounds with queens. The article says he was also looking for innuendo names and cartoon character names because that was also easy.
Humans are crap at being rational, they let greed, ignorance, faith, miss-placed survival instincts, trust, lust, fear etc cloud their judgements.
For something not living those sperm swim bloody well, I say they live.
I'm not against the womb transplant if it works, and I wouldn't deny medicine the chance to perfect the operation etc. Just against people having children that wouldn't be able to support themselves when they become adults. What would be wrong is if it was known that the woman with the transplant would give birth to a child also without a womb, but I'm guessing that's not the case.
I very much doubt it.
re 1: After a bit of research, I'm starting to think that I was duped by some crap article in the past. A lot of disabilities are due to environmental factors such as smoking etc and half the time the cause is unknown, leaving only 20% of disabilities at birth being due to genetic inheritance, and disabilities at birth are a small percentage of the total.
But I still don't know now what the trend in disabilities at birth due to genetic inheritance is, got any links?
3) Is not a straw man argument, why should the 2 sperm that make it be allowed to live, they are no more special than the billions that didn't make it, in this particular case they are worse.
2) Shouldn't be having children that would not survive without car and can earn their keep in society.
1) Shout at me for not giving citation but didn't give citations yourself for your counter-argument. (I'm having a look, but I'm getting an ocean of results which don't answer the question either way).