That's not how I read the GP. I interpreted Gavagai80's comment as saying Tesla should have the option to offer repair services to anyone who wanted service from Tesla, not that Tesla should have the option to force all Tesla owners to get service from Tesla.
We're headed for extreme levels of national debt anyway: who do you think is going to pay to repair all the property damage caused by climate change? All those "lazy" folks "choosing" to make only minimum wage? We're already losing hundreds of billions each year due to health problems caused by climate change, and Trump is trying to reduce environmental protections.
Watch it. You'll see that the problem is humanity adding insulation to the atmosphere. Just like adding insulation to your house would keep more heat in, adding more insulation to the earth keeps more heat in.
Unfortunately, unlike your home furnace, the sun isn't connected to a thermostat,
While I agree that a decade for *everything* is absurd, EVs and solar/wind will probably be ready in time. Even without a carbon fee, solar almost beats coal, and wind does beat coal, including storage to even output. The two REs with storage are also close enough to natural gas, that the carbon fee may tip the balance.
Comparing a Chevy Bolt with a Honda Fit, if you drive 10,000 miles a year, it will take 12 years to reach break-even point on cost. Adding a $40 carbon fee would drop that to 7-8 years. Batteries are getting cheaper every day, so 10 years for the technology seems reasonable.
Heating is different story. Air- and ground-source heat pumps work decently, but I think they require forced-air systems? Replacing steam radiators or baseboard water systems would be wicked expensive. You'd also need to build a heck of a lot of storage to save fall sunlight to power winter heating systems.
Then there's the task of actually replacing all of the FF equipment: while most of the RE technologies will be ready in 10 years, I don't think we can build the capacity to manufacture all of the replacement RE equipment in 10 years.
Unless we somehow managed to change our voting system to use Ranked Choice Voting. It worked in Maine a few months ago. Granted, I'm more likely to see pigs fly, unless the Dems get really scared about another 3rd party candidate screwing things up for 2020.
The 99% number was from a presentation by Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Maybe I should stick with the 97% number, since that presentation isn't online.
Science isn't conducted as a popularity contest, correct. However, the percentage of scientists that can't find issues with the models or mathematics is a useful guess as to the probability of correctness.
Let's go to another cancer example. Say the patient is my young son/daughter. I am the only guardian, so I have to make the decision. The first doctor orders a few tests and diagnoses Cancer. I want more assurance before making a decision, so I take my child to 9 other doctors. Some doctors order new tests. Others just review the results from the previous tests. In the end, 9 out of the 10 doctors diagnose cancer.
Given that there's no way I can become a cancer expert quickly enough, my best choice is to go with the 9 doctors. I'm not going to bet my child's life on the chance that 9 of the 10 doctors were idiots.
I sure as hell am not going to bet the future of humanity against the knowledge of 97% of scientists.
As for not following the scientific method, considering I don't know what specific mistake you think scientists have made, there's no way for me to agree or disagree with you.
Say someone is diagnosed with a Stage 1 cancer. The doctor says, "Treat this now to give you the best chance to survive." The patient either doesn't believe the doctor, or doesn't think the money is available, or thinks that God will save them, or thinks the doctor is just being an alarmist. So, the patient does nothing.
A couple years later the patient goes back to the doctor. The cancer has metastasized. There's a huge effort, but it's all for naught.
Is it really alarmism when 99% of the experts say we need to solve a problem as quickly as possible?
Yes, climate change might not kill everyone off until one or two centuries from now. However, that is pretty much guaranteed if we don't take serious action in the next 20 years.
A supervolcano eruption might happen next year. It might happen 100,000 years from now. That 0.001% chance of an eruption isn't worth worrying about if we seal humanity's fate in the next 20 years.
Any day, there's a small chance I'll be shot. I could act on that low-risk possibility and spend my entire life in a bunker. That wouldn't be much of a life if I let that fear rule my actions.
However, if I hear gunfire nearby, there is a high risk I could be shot. This fear is worth acting upon.
This report is the equivalent of nearby gunfire. Are you going to do what you can to save your ass?
Freezing your credit is the better way. Not only does this protect you from folks trying to sign you up for Informed Delivery, it also protects you from people opening credit cards, loans, etc in your name.
And yet you're the one that added a statistic to one side only. Why not provide statistics of other problems caused by pollution? Because you don't care about taking a look at all of our problems (environment, health, crime, immigration, etc) objectively and then prioritizing. Your identity theft statistic also covers 6 years according to this. I think people would prefer Identity theft to dying early.
That being said, I should have framed this slightly differently: cost to resolve the issues. If the US could spend $100 per death prevented by building the "wall", compared to say $150 per death prevented by reducing pollution, it would be better to build the wall first. However, making these determinations still requires objective analysis.
That name was dreamt up to play on the fears of Republican voters, including the suggestion that it would have "death panels". A survey early last year showed 35% of respondents still didn't realize "Obamacare" was the same thing as the ACA. We need to make decisions rationally, not out of fear.
For instance, you're more likely to be killed by pollution (200,000 early deaths per year) than an undocumented immigrant (750 per year). However, our administration wants to spend money building a wall to protect you from the "dangerous" Mexicans, but doesn't mention anything about how many people die from pollution when announcing cuts to emissions standards.
(The 750 number is 456 arrests per year, plus an estimated correction factor due to cases not being solved.)
Are you really going to say an American should be allowed 3 times the carbon output of a Chinese citizen? If you aren't willing to cut your own output significantly, you have no right to bitch about another human, regardless of whether they are your neighbor or on the other side of the planet.
It's possible to be blunt without being offensive:
"This code is using raw pointers to objects. It should have shared_ptr or unique_ptr instances to make sure the objects are deleted once and only once."
"This loop will exceed the size of the array because the array wasn't properly allocated at line N."
No need to talk about the person at all. Just factually state the improper behavior of the code.
No. While we may be on the path to catastrophic events today, giving up is the best way to guarantee that outcome. Doing what we can today may delay those events enough that someone figures out cheap, large scale carbon capture.
China still has a few coal plants in the works, although it did stop construction on some. India says it will stop building coal plants in 2022. While the US isn't adding new coal plants, the current administration is attempting to keep the existing ones in service longer.
Basically, we need to do what we can as individuals, and the cheapest (and maybe most important) thing there is voting to get people of sound mind into government.
The response from both sides is disturbing? Trump and the GOP congress are destroying the lower class so the rich can get richer. The Democrats are trying desperately to prevent this. That's a disturbing reaction? Maybe in the sense that it's disturbing that it needs to be done.
Slashdot Mirror
Superior Launch System.
That's not how I read the GP. I interpreted Gavagai80's comment as saying Tesla should have the option to offer repair services to anyone who wanted service from Tesla, not that Tesla should have the option to force all Tesla owners to get service from Tesla.
We're headed for extreme levels of national debt anyway: who do you think is going to pay to repair all the property damage caused by climate change? All those "lazy" folks "choosing" to make only minimum wage? We're already losing hundreds of billions each year due to health problems caused by climate change, and Trump is trying to reduce environmental protections.
Watch it. You'll see that the problem is humanity adding insulation to the atmosphere. Just like adding insulation to your house would keep more heat in, adding more insulation to the earth keeps more heat in.
Unfortunately, unlike your home furnace, the sun isn't connected to a thermostat,
While I agree that a decade for *everything* is absurd, EVs and solar/wind will probably be ready in time. Even without a carbon fee, solar almost beats coal, and wind does beat coal, including storage to even output. The two REs with storage are also close enough to natural gas, that the carbon fee may tip the balance.
Comparing a Chevy Bolt with a Honda Fit, if you drive 10,000 miles a year, it will take 12 years to reach break-even point on cost. Adding a $40 carbon fee would drop that to 7-8 years. Batteries are getting cheaper every day, so 10 years for the technology seems reasonable.
Heating is different story. Air- and ground-source heat pumps work decently, but I think they require forced-air systems? Replacing steam radiators or baseboard water systems would be wicked expensive. You'd also need to build a heck of a lot of storage to save fall sunlight to power winter heating systems.
Then there's the task of actually replacing all of the FF equipment: while most of the RE technologies will be ready in 10 years, I don't think we can build the capacity to manufacture all of the replacement RE equipment in 10 years.
I liked Budweiser's commercial best. It gave me a little hope that humanity isn't going to completely screw itself over.
Unless we somehow managed to change our voting system to use Ranked Choice Voting. It worked in Maine a few months ago. Granted, I'm more likely to see pigs fly, unless the Dems get really scared about another 3rd party candidate screwing things up for 2020.
"Brody, I notice you've stopped stuttering."
"I've been giving myself shock treatments."
The 99% number was from a presentation by Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Maybe I should stick with the 97% number, since that presentation isn't online.
Science isn't conducted as a popularity contest, correct. However, the percentage of scientists that can't find issues with the models or mathematics is a useful guess as to the probability of correctness.
Let's go to another cancer example. Say the patient is my young son/daughter. I am the only guardian, so I have to make the decision. The first doctor orders a few tests and diagnoses Cancer. I want more assurance before making a decision, so I take my child to 9 other doctors. Some doctors order new tests. Others just review the results from the previous tests. In the end, 9 out of the 10 doctors diagnose cancer.
Given that there's no way I can become a cancer expert quickly enough, my best choice is to go with the 9 doctors. I'm not going to bet my child's life on the chance that 9 of the 10 doctors were idiots.
I sure as hell am not going to bet the future of humanity against the knowledge of 97% of scientists.
As for not following the scientific method, considering I don't know what specific mistake you think scientists have made, there's no way for me to agree or disagree with you.
Say someone is diagnosed with a Stage 1 cancer. The doctor says, "Treat this now to give you the best chance to survive." The patient either doesn't believe the doctor, or doesn't think the money is available, or thinks that God will save them, or thinks the doctor is just being an alarmist. So, the patient does nothing.
A couple years later the patient goes back to the doctor. The cancer has metastasized. There's a huge effort, but it's all for naught.
Is it really alarmism when 99% of the experts say we need to solve a problem as quickly as possible?
Yes, climate change might not kill everyone off until one or two centuries from now. However, that is pretty much guaranteed if we don't take serious action in the next 20 years.
A supervolcano eruption might happen next year. It might happen 100,000 years from now. That 0.001% chance of an eruption isn't worth worrying about if we seal humanity's fate in the next 20 years.
Any day, there's a small chance I'll be shot. I could act on that low-risk possibility and spend my entire life in a bunker. That wouldn't be much of a life if I let that fear rule my actions.
However, if I hear gunfire nearby, there is a high risk I could be shot. This fear is worth acting upon.
This report is the equivalent of nearby gunfire. Are you going to do what you can to save your ass?
Siig model JK-US0312-S1 . Gives you more space on your desk.
If not, talk about giving away the keys to the castle...
Freezing your credit is the better way. Not only does this protect you from folks trying to sign you up for Informed Delivery, it also protects you from people opening credit cards, loans, etc in your name.
One more reason to freeze one's credit. Everyone should freeze their credit, and only unlock it for those few days when one actually needs it.
> Do they send a postcard to the address stating "your mail is being monitored" ?
Not useful: the identity thieves could just steal that once they sign up as you.
Screw that. I shouldn't need to create an online account just to protect my mail. Too many online accounts...
And yet you're the one that added a statistic to one side only. Why not provide statistics of other problems caused by pollution? Because you don't care about taking a look at all of our problems (environment, health, crime, immigration, etc) objectively and then prioritizing. Your identity theft statistic also covers 6 years according to this. I think people would prefer Identity theft to dying early.
That being said, I should have framed this slightly differently: cost to resolve the issues. If the US could spend $100 per death prevented by building the "wall", compared to say $150 per death prevented by reducing pollution, it would be better to build the wall first. However, making these determinations still requires objective analysis.
That name was dreamt up to play on the fears of Republican voters, including the suggestion that it would have "death panels". A survey early last year showed 35% of respondents still didn't realize "Obamacare" was the same thing as the ACA. We need to make decisions rationally, not out of fear.
For instance, you're more likely to be killed by pollution (200,000 early deaths per year) than an undocumented immigrant (750 per year). However, our administration wants to spend money building a wall to protect you from the "dangerous" Mexicans, but doesn't mention anything about how many people die from pollution when announcing cuts to emissions standards.
(The 750 number is 456 arrests per year, plus an estimated correction factor due to cases not being solved.)
Are you really going to say an American should be allowed 3 times the carbon output of a Chinese citizen? If you aren't willing to cut your own output significantly, you have no right to bitch about another human, regardless of whether they are your neighbor or on the other side of the planet.
It's possible to be blunt without being offensive:
"This code is using raw pointers to objects. It should have shared_ptr or unique_ptr instances to make sure the objects are deleted once and only once."
"This loop will exceed the size of the array because the array wasn't properly allocated at line N."
No need to talk about the person at all. Just factually state the improper behavior of the code.
No. While we may be on the path to catastrophic events today, giving up is the best way to guarantee that outcome. Doing what we can today may delay those events enough that someone figures out cheap, large scale carbon capture.
China still has a few coal plants in the works, although it did stop construction on some. India says it will stop building coal plants in 2022. While the US isn't adding new coal plants, the current administration is attempting to keep the existing ones in service longer.
Basically, we need to do what we can as individuals, and the cheapest (and maybe most important) thing there is voting to get people of sound mind into government.
The response from both sides is disturbing? Trump and the GOP congress are destroying the lower class so the rich can get richer. The Democrats are trying desperately to prevent this. That's a disturbing reaction? Maybe in the sense that it's disturbing that it needs to be done.