How the fuck does a new hire have that kind of access?
Having worked at some small businesses before it seems to me to be pretty common. The article said the business had a couple hundred people at most and 40+ developers. Quite likely the people there were there for a long time and they hired a handful of people since they now had a need for some help and finally some money to pay them. This is how things were done for years and not remembering what can happen if a newbie fucks up once in a while they thought nothing about handing over the documentation they used themselves, and never really having to test the documentation against a newbie before they didn't consider the consequences of what might happen if the doc was followed to the letter and/or with a minor mistype like inputting the production servers instead of the developers servers.
The lack of a proper backup is inexcusable. I learned that in college after having lost the only copy to a semester project a week before the end of the semester. After that anything I deemed "important" I kept a backup where it was not likely to be deleted accidentally.
I worked for a larger organization doing some development and I was never given access to the production servers. Once I could prove that I had something working I would hand my files over to a manager and he'd copy the files over himself. This was always a bit of a tense moment because, due to budget constraints for the project, I was using MacOS/Apache/MySQL/PHP for testing while the production servers were Windows/IIS/MSSQL/PHP. It seems everything was close enough because I didn't hear anyone complain about broken code. If something didn't work then it would have been very time consuming to roll back and also very difficult to debug.
This also makes me think a bit on why developers, even newbies, would have access to the production servers. If something broke between the transition between the development system and production then they'd want it fixed right away. This would be easier to do if the developers had access to the production servers. This would be avoided if the production and development systems were identical but like in that project I mentioned it might be that budget constraints prevented them from doing so.
"I could have done this back in the '50s, but the cost would have been $1M per house, so that's proof it could never happen."
That's not what I said. I said it cannot be done TODAY and therefore, if we believe that CO2 emissions are an imminent problem, then we must do something else. Using solar power to replace coal TODAY cannot be done because it costs too much. The claim it takes no space is also nonsense. It might take minimal space but it does not take zero. We might see the day very soon that this makes economic sense but that day is not TODAY.
This is also using the energy demands of a typical home. Would this work for a iron recycling center? An aluminum refinery? A shipyard? Or even just a grocery store? How big of a battery pack would those take? Would the solar panels needed even fit on the same property? How would the costs compare to energy provided from coal, natural gas, or nuclear?
If we want to fix this problem as soon as possible then we'd be using nuclear power, not solar.
Also, think of the environmental implications. As it is now a typical business is surrounded with green space, at least that is the case around here. At a minimum you'd have a parking lot out in the sun with trees planted here and there. If we were using solar panels then the parking lots would be covered by solar panels, lit by artificial lighting and/or little windows in the collectors. No more grass and trees. It would be horribly depressing to live in a place like that.
Was not this in fact a plot point in some recent spy movies? I know fiction is not fact but if some filmmakers can figure this out then others can figure it out too.
What of a person that prints with a pattern of dots that makes the watermark unreadable? I can envision someone creating a printer driver that does exactly this and release it on the internet. The government might try to arrest the people that did this and have them put in prison but once it is out there it can't be taken back.
This watermark scheme will be defeated. Recent events put a spotlight on them and so I expect a trivial means to circumvent it to be out in about... 5... 4... 3...
People have been caught with leaked documents by tracing back who had access to these files, looking at folds, smudges, and other imperfections in the printed page, and so on. The watermark only adds another level of data to trace back the source.
This has been true in other cases. People could track back typewritten pages to certain models of typewriters by the font, spacing, and so on. Adding further analysis to things like wear patterns and manufacturing defects on the letters can add some additional data to work with. In the end it takes more than just tracing it back to the device to trace it back to the person since these devices (printers, typewriters, whatever) can be shared among several people.
We'll see this in tracing firearms. Law enforcement might have access to things like serial numbers, fired bullets, and other records but this is meaningless if people do things like, falsify the registration, file off serial numbers, steal/sell/borrow the weapon, change the barrel (making tracking by patterns on a fire bullet useless), beat up and abuse the weapon (which can alter wear patterns on the fired bullet, wear off serial numbers, etc.), and so on.
Fundamentally it comes down to understanding the technology one is using, and to mitigate the pitfalls. If you're ignorant or stupid then you'll probably get caught.
That I can agree with. If one doesn't know that the gun bought to commit a crime has had the bullet patterns recorded with law enforcement before the gun was even sold, and a recovered bullet and manufacturer records can trace it back to the owner, then this can get one caught by the police quickly. What this cannot do is trace it back to the person that fired the gun since the owner may not be the same person that fired the bullet. It can shortcut a lot of work that has to be done but it cannot eliminate it completely to get a conviction.
These firearm records have in fact been so useless in tracking criminals that they've been abandoned by many governments. They cost too much to maintain and they almost never trace back to the criminal. Anyone that claims them to be useful is an idiot or ignorant. Because of this I have to wonder about the utility of these color printer watermarks. They may have worked in a handful of cases but once people figure this out then it's trivial to circumvent and it becomes worthless and expensive.
thousands of gallons of bunker fuel, which is worth approximately fuck-all per gallon
I see your point but I'm not convinced it's valid. Not many ships use bunker fuel any more out of concerns of safety (it can be a fire hazard since it's so thick and sticky), emissions (it contains a lot of sulfur), and economy (marine diesel is often not much more in cost but more energy dense by volume and weight). Bunker fuel is still valuable as heating and cooking fuel, or perhaps if sold as a high grade crude oil. Marine diesel can in fact be used in a pickup truck since it's not much different than "summer" diesel at a filling station, and it's also valuable as cooking and heating fuel.
Whatever you are hauling does not have to be heavy to be valuable. Sure a wad of copper wires stripped from the ship might be "heavy" in that it weighs a couple hundred pounds but it's worth a lot of money on the scrap metal market. It might not grab as high of a value as ransoming the crew but it's also much less risk since it's not likely to get Navy SEALs to shoot you in the head over it.
I'm not a thief or law enforcement so I'll admit I may in fact know nothing about piracy.
This might also explain why my printer refuses to print in B&W when it's out of one of the color inks.
The black cartridge is a bit larger than the color ones, and I rarely use the inkjet for B&W printing. Once in a while I find myself in a situation where I want a printout, don't care if it's color or not, while I'm low on ink and my laser printer is acting up. The inkjet printer refuses to print and I'm forced to take the time out of my day to run for office supplies when I'd rather just do that on the weekend. This happened more often than I'd like and I realize it happened because I was not buying ink when I should. I have recently acquired a new laser printer and so this should not happen again for a long time.
Then again it might just be stupid software in the printer that does not know the difference between B&W printing and color printing when checking ink levels.
Elon Musk is not claiming that solar takes no space. He'll claim the space used is negligible, and it likely is with the expensive high density batteries he's using. He also freely admits that electric vehicles and solar power don't make sense in every case. Once in a while I'll check his math and roll my eyes at his claims but I don't know what he knows so I realize that he could be making an honest sale but I have my doubts.
I hear so many people complaining about Apple being "lame" because their products don't do what they want. My reply? "Don't buy it then."
I'm trying to understand this vocal hate of Apple. It's one thing to make a brand preference but another to plaster it on the internet and bumper stickers. I like Ford and Pepsi products but I don't put a "piss on Chevy" bumper sticker on my truck or wear Pepsi T-shirts. I used to wear an Apple ball cap all the time because it was given to me and I like to wear ball caps. I stopped wearing it because people felt the need to comment on it, and few of the comments were nice.
I buy Apple stuff and I buy stuff from their competitors. If you think I made a bad choice in my purchases then could you at least be nice about making your point? I'd rather you keep it to yourself unless I ask but be nice regardless.
There is zero space needed for solar. If every building had panels on the roof, then we'd produce more power than we consume.
The solar panels themselves may take no real space as it displaces the shingles we'd normally use but what of the inverters, batteries, and so on?
I did the math on converting my house to solar to make a point to a friend. I could in fact run my house on solar power by covering the roof in solar panels. This would require keeping my natural gas furnace and water heater, and maybe replacing my stove and dryer with natural gas too. In the summer I'd have enough extra capacity to charge up an electric hybrid vehicle for my daily commute but in the winter I'd have to fill it up with gasoline, diesel, or natural gas.
Then comes the space it'd take. I'd need two, three, or four large off the shelf inverters, depending largely on if I kept my large electric appliances or replaced them with gas. I computed for about a 48 hour reserve of electricity since a storm could block out the sun for a day, and I'm including the night before and after along with a safety reserve. This battery would be very large for my small house, something like 1 x 1 x 3 meters, if I recall correctly. It would weigh several tons. It would also make my cost of electricity roughly ten times what I pay now if I were to finance this over the expected life of the batteries, panels, and electronics.
Even if we were to get the price down to 1/10 of what I computed a couple years ago it would still take a lot of space. I'd have to dedicate the space equivalent to a small bedroom to the equipment, if we allow for room to do maintenance. If this is done on a utility scale then the batteries may not be in my basement but then they would have to be at a site built and maintained by the utility.
Sure, solar takes zero space if we ignore the electronics and storage needed to make it useful.
Wrong. Solar is already cheaper than coal in sunny states without subsidies.
What was proposed was solar panels WITH batteries, flywheels, or other storage. This storage costs money on top of those solar panels. For solar to be as cheap as coal AND still be available 24/7 means that solar has to be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than coal to make up for the costs of the storage. A tiny tiny fraction difference in price between solar and coal is insufficient to get people to switch because coal runs 24/7 in any weather, solar does not.
There's a reason coal isn't being built anymore and it's because it's uneconomical.
Coal is uneconomical because natural gas got real cheap, not because of solar, wind, or anything "green". If we don't keep replacing coal with something actually cheaper, like natural gas, then energy prices will increase. Trump has put some pro-nuclear people in his administration this might mean we'll start building more nuclear power plants at a rate close to what we did 40 or 50 years ago and we'll see energy get even cheaper.
You can claim that solar will get cheaper in time but that does not help me today. I want natural gas and nuclear. When or if solar with storage gets cheaper than natural gas, nuclear, and coal, then we can talk about switching over.
How? I thought we we comparing coal to wind and solar in order to get clean and reliable energy.
I was addressing the AC's unpredictability concern.
Yes you did, and you claimed the problem was "solved" when it is not. What you proposed would mean the cost of that electricity would be at least double what it costs if produced by coal.
You're talking about the physical size of infrastructure, a wholly unrelated topic, and you've dragged nuclear into it too for reasons I can't fathom.
The physical size relates to cost and therefore the ability to solve this problem. Cost of the alternate is fundamental to the decision to use that alternate. Nuclear was mentioned as that is a clean energy source, cleaner than coal, wind, or solar, and at a cost comparable to coal. I mention nuclear because if we are looking for something better than what we are doing now then nuclear needs to be considered among the solutions, especially if reliability of the power source is a concern.
You clearly don't believe we're industrious enough to use an "unpredictable" energy source, so you're suggesting we should just call it quits instead.
It is NOT a solved problem and as industrious as Americans are they cannot break the laws of physics.
The problem with batteries, flywheels, and such is that they use materials to produce. This means that they take up space, cost money, and must come from something. This is mostly about cost since the way we measure space and materials is on how much it costs. The cost of solar and wind power will always cost more than coal and nuclear power because it takes more material and space to get the same output. This is especially true since the storage systems and redundant power also take more space and material.
We can add in labor costs too. People make a big deal on how wind and solar now employs as much people as coal now, or whatever the claim is. This not good, it is very bad. Coal, nuclear, and natural gas each produces about 1/3rd of the electricity in the USA, while wind and solar combined produces about 1/20th. If you translate that manpower into dollars then you have another cost problem above the space and material costs.
I could have agreed with you if you stuck with skin color and sexual orientation. Religion is a choice just like what sport teams you like. Many people choose to be the same religion as their parents just like they choose to be fans of the same sport teams as their parents.
To someone willing to kill another over their choice of sport teams then in the mind of that deranged individual the choice of sport teams is as fundamental as religion. What a "hate crime" is at its core is "thought crime". Because someone thought the "wrong" thoughts the government is going to punish that person more severely. That's not right.
This especially bothers me when the hate crime laws are applied when it should not and is not applied when it is clear the law was violated. A bunch of black kids that abused a white kid is not likely to have a hate crime enhancement to their punishment, but if a white kid kills a black kid over what sport teams they cheered for then its now a "hate crime". Justice should be blind to such things.
I agree but it seems so many people fail to understand this. I've heard about passenger aircraft without crews for a long time. I know this won't happen. One reason is that as annoying as it might look to people that fly regularly those safety briefings at the beginning of the flight is important. Even if you don't care if your passengers are comfortable, or even if they survive, a 25 kg child getting tossed about in the cabin during turbulence can damage the plane. Having someone on the plane to check for seat belts and whatever is cheap insurance.
In the case of moving cargo the legal liabilities may be much lower but the cargo still has value. Letting a passenger die can get someone in prison while losing a billion dollar airplane or ship likely will not. This still has a cost to the people that own and operate this vehicles. At that price level having a trained crew of four is nothing. Put the people on an overlapping shifts of 8 or 12 hours and you can have one guy or two look out for icebergs or whatever while the other cooks the food, washes dishes, and changes light bulbs.
I've talked to people that sailed the open ocean and it can be days of boredom punctuated by seconds of excitement. Those seconds are important as those can mean loss of the ship if no one is there to do something about it. They can put in redundant systems and what not to reduce the need for crew but I find it difficult to think that we'll ever do away with the crew entirely.
Cutting torches can be found for a number of different fuels like gasoline and propane. I'd think the limiting factor would be more in the access to bottled oxygen. This isn't going to be precision work by any means so compressed air and whatever they use to fuel their boats should be sufficient.
It's been a while since I've seen anyone use a torch so I don't recall exactly what one needs to make it work. I've heard of people making "water torches" that electrolyze water and burn the resulting oxygen-hydrogen mix. I don't know if this is suitable for cutting through a steel bulkhead in any reasonable time though.
Pirates usually target the crew, and hold the crew as hostage.
You don't think the cargo has any value? Or the ship itself? I'd think just the fuel in the tanks would be a valuable target for theft, and I don't mean a tanker ship. Any ship at sea will need a lot of fuel to propel itself and that is worth money.
If they can cut through the bulkhead, disable the navigation systems, then they have all kinds of time to take what they can get. They might not be able to take the ship, or even much of the cargo, but they can strip the ship of parts, siphon off its fuel, or just make it clear it will be scuttled if ransom isn't paid.
Taking the crew hostage is likely the highest pay off for the least skill and labor in piracy. Lacking that they can still get a lot out of a ship lacking a crew. It just means they have to find someone with a cutting torch that knows how to use it. That should pay for itself on the first time out.
An excellent post but you didn't really address the issue of a "hate crime" only the differing levels of homicide. In many places there's generally three or four levels of criminal homicide, which addresses criminal negligence resulting in death, manslaughter (which might be the same as the first), second degree murder (an intentional act with intent to kill), first degree murder (intentional homicide with premeditation or of a government official). What the concept of "hate crime" does is add to the punishment if the court can find a case of the accused acting against the victim because the victim was some sort minority, or other protected class of person, and the accused is not a member of some protected class.
This concept of "hate crime" violates the concept of the law being blind to the kind of person being accused. All people should be equal under the law. If a person kills another with premeditated intent then that should be murder in the first degree. All instances of murder one is a "hate crime" because people don't generally kill people they love. Why one kills another is important, and should be the case up to a point, do we really need to punish people more severely because of the differences in skin color, religion, sexual orientation, or whatever?
If a Packers fan kills a Bears fan because the Bears fan insulted the Packers then is that not just as much a "hate crime" if a Muslim kills a Christian because the Christian insulted Mohammed? Each case is a violation of rights on all kinds of levels, a serious crime was committed in both cases, so don't think I'm saying either should not be punished severely. I'm just having a tough time thinking that one is "greater" crime than the other.
I also don't like these "with a gun" laws. People will kill others by stabbing, tossing out windows, running them over, lighting them on fire, beating them with a pipe in the conservatory, or hanging them by rope in the kitchen. If a person kills by shooting another with a revolver in the library though then that is some special level of evil that must be punished extra severely... or something. Life isn't a game of Cluedo. Then again, maybe we should make it more like a game, with rules spelled out in advance that everyone must follow equally. Reverend Green should get the same punishment for a crime as Mrs. White.
Then maybe you need to put those take home dollars towards a different clinic. You have more choices than I do. With the VA I can take their care or leave it, by leaving it I have to pay for it with my tax dollars AND still have to pay for private care. You can shop for a different clinic with your money if you are not happy.
It also bothers me that you are so forgiving of your tax money going towards second rate care.
If the FDA is not requiring these devices to be accurate and precise then could not some private entity offer validation services of their own? I'd think a seal of approval for accuracy would be worth something for both makers and consumers, that can translate to real money.
Think of the Underwriters Laboratory, it is a private company that tests and approves electrical devices for safety. People that try to sell something not approved by them will have problems. Stores are not likely to even put them on shelves if not UL approved.
I've also seen a bunch of comments on how physicians and drug makers make a lot of money on blood pressure medications and so they are not really interested in an accurate blood pressure meter. I don't agree as I'd think that there is a lot of liability in prescribing medications for those that do not need it.
Let's assume that this is true that since physicians and drug makers are set on handing out meds for money then would not market forces work in offering alternatives? Do not insurance companies play a role? It's rare for people to pay for medical care out of pocket. The insurance companies see a payout for high blood pressure as a cost. I'd think that it would be in their best interest to make sure that those that truly have high blood pressure have it treated and those that don't are not given medications that can have harmful side effects.
I think that if this a real problem then some insurance companies should get together and make sure these meters work like they should. I would think that fixing the meters could save them a lot of money in payouts for medications and care. It would also have the side effect of a healthy public. If appealing to profit doesn't work then appealing to principles should.
I have a foot problem and every time I go to see a physician I have a nurse escort me down this long hallway (maybe not so long really but MY FEET HURT) to check my weight. After I get weighed I go further down the hall to an office where I am sat down and the nurse asks me about all kinds of different diseases I could have (but likely don't, but now I'm thinking if I really do). At about this point I get my blood pressure, pulse rate, and temperature taken. My blood pressure almost always reads high. Some nurses will have me sit for a bit and take it again, this time talking about the weather or something else much less stressful than if I have skin cancer or not. This second reading is almost always much lower.
Recently I was complaining about this odd nurse behavior with my brother and he tells me that he looked up the process they are supposed to use in taking blood pressure. You are supposed to be sitting quietly (as in not talking and certainly not talking about heart failure or testicular cancer) for 15 minutes or more before they take your blood pressure. The nurses were not following proper procedures.
A couple years ago the physician saw my series of high blood pressure readings and put me on blood pressure medication and gave me a blood pressure meter to take home. My blood pressure was fine at home, even before the blood pressure medicine had a chance to take effect. The next time I saw the physician I mentioned this and she says I don't have to take the medicine any more.
i don't know if they've made some note in my file or something but my blood pressure is rarely mentioned any more. Any high readings are waved away as a result of my pain.
Another thing, this is the care I'm getting from the Veteran clinics. American tax dollars at work. Nurses that don't bother to take a proper blood pressure, physicians that seem willing to offer meds to fix a problem than bother to investigate a cause, and just general poor care. That's whet government funded care looks like.
Computers just got so reliable, inexpensive, and integrated now that it just does not make sense for a large portion of the population to upgrade or repair computers on their own. I've seen this happen in less than five years at work.
It used to be that we'd have parts on hand to replace all kinds of components on computers. We had a box of Ethernet cards. We had a box of video cards. Another box with RAM. A few other boxes of more random parts like sound cards, parallel port cards, hard drive controllers, a motherboard or two, serial cards, a few spare power supplies, and so on. Every so often we clean out the server room and out go these spare parts as they become outdated and not replaced with a current equivalent. Or rather the equivalent is now just keeping a few more spare computers on hand.
How do we fix computers now? If the computer is a bit older and it comes in for a software refresh then we'll put in some RAM that was scavenged from a computer that was disposed of. If the problem can be traced to a bad hard drive then it's replaced. Any other hardware problem and the computer is sent back under warranty, or if it's not under warranty then it's simply replaced. We still have a box of video cards but most of the computers now don't even have a slot to put a video card into. Given that these cards have DVI and HDMI ports and DisplayPort is pretty much the default now I expect that we won't even keep video cards on hand soon.
I suspect that in another five years we won't even bother with RAM and hard drives. Apple has simply decided to cater to the market that sees the computer as a "whole" and not a collection of components. They've been operating under this philosophy for a long time with their low end computers. Even with higher end computers this is becoming the norm.
Apple is not alone in this philosophy. We don't have any Apple computers at work but all the new ones look a lot like an iMac or Mac Mini in their features and form. The servers are getting to be "black boxes" now and aren't upgraded, just replaced.
Computers just got so cheap that it's just not worth the time to fix them or upgrade them any more.
Even with decreasing oil use we would still need to build new pipelines because pipelines wear out and demands shift.
There is little doubt to those that know what they are talking about that we will still be burning oil in 30, 50, or perhaps 100 years. The dispute is over how much we will need.
Another thing, is exporting oil out of the USA so bad? I'm pretty sure the USA has much better rules on worker safety and environmental protection. The USA needs money too. If we don't export this oil then other nations will buy it from dictatorial hellholes and use that money to buy weapons they use against US citizens and allies. US oil producers getting a profit benefits me in many ways, including more jobs for Americans.
Yeah something taking a while is a good reason not to start.
I didn't say that. I said that if we start making that transition now it will take decades to complete. In the mean time we will continue to burn oil. We can move that oil by train or by pipes. Moving by pipes takes less energy, produces less pollution, and is much less likely to spill. The people protesting these pipelines out of a concern for the environment are ignorant fools.
look, if you want emissions down in USA it is rather simple, start co2 taxing like many places in the world.
Taxes won't help. All they will do is make everyone poorer. I've heard talks from people working on alternative energy and funding dries up when taxes are increased. People need the money and freedom to develop the next best thing. Oh, and these people complain about the cost of energy. It takes a lot of energy to weld windmills together and get them tested. Moving the windmills to the site means transport by truck.
When it comes down to it energy is energy. If carbon fuels are taxed then all energy prices go up. This will always be the case until we no longer burn fossil fuels. Until then adding taxes on the fuels will only slow down the transition, not increase it.
Think about it. You have an electric train that has a cost of $10 per whatever (I'm not feeling creative enough to thing of proper units right now). I have a diesel train that can do it at $15 per whatever. After I add in overhead and profit margin I come up with a total of $20 per whatever to charge. You want business and maximum profits and so you charge $19 and get most of the business.
Then a carbon tax comes along, my costs just went up to $20. If I want to make any profit at all I have to raise my price. I do some thinking, and I decide I have to charge $25. What are you going to do? You've already got as much business as you can handle. Your clients aren't going to pick me unless they have to. Unless you also raise your prices, to something like $23, you are going to get hassled by stockholders in your company and potentially sued for not doing your duty as the operator to maximize profits.
Also, some of what you need for your business will move to you by my and other more expensive trains. At some point you will have to raise prices as the taxes work their way into the prices of goods. Who wins on this? The government. Who loses? EVERYONE.
I've also talked to people that deal in ethanol. If you want to see a taxation and regulation nightmare then look at what it takes to open an ethanol fuel plant. The prohibition of alcohol may have ended but the taxes never did. If you want to see bio-fuels get some development then we need to get rid of the alcohol taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
How the fuck does a new hire have that kind of access?
Having worked at some small businesses before it seems to me to be pretty common. The article said the business had a couple hundred people at most and 40+ developers. Quite likely the people there were there for a long time and they hired a handful of people since they now had a need for some help and finally some money to pay them. This is how things were done for years and not remembering what can happen if a newbie fucks up once in a while they thought nothing about handing over the documentation they used themselves, and never really having to test the documentation against a newbie before they didn't consider the consequences of what might happen if the doc was followed to the letter and/or with a minor mistype like inputting the production servers instead of the developers servers.
The lack of a proper backup is inexcusable. I learned that in college after having lost the only copy to a semester project a week before the end of the semester. After that anything I deemed "important" I kept a backup where it was not likely to be deleted accidentally.
I worked for a larger organization doing some development and I was never given access to the production servers. Once I could prove that I had something working I would hand my files over to a manager and he'd copy the files over himself. This was always a bit of a tense moment because, due to budget constraints for the project, I was using MacOS/Apache/MySQL/PHP for testing while the production servers were Windows/IIS/MSSQL/PHP. It seems everything was close enough because I didn't hear anyone complain about broken code. If something didn't work then it would have been very time consuming to roll back and also very difficult to debug.
This also makes me think a bit on why developers, even newbies, would have access to the production servers. If something broke between the transition between the development system and production then they'd want it fixed right away. This would be easier to do if the developers had access to the production servers. This would be avoided if the production and development systems were identical but like in that project I mentioned it might be that budget constraints prevented them from doing so.
"I could have done this back in the '50s, but the cost would have been $1M per house, so that's proof it could never happen."
That's not what I said. I said it cannot be done TODAY and therefore, if we believe that CO2 emissions are an imminent problem, then we must do something else. Using solar power to replace coal TODAY cannot be done because it costs too much. The claim it takes no space is also nonsense. It might take minimal space but it does not take zero. We might see the day very soon that this makes economic sense but that day is not TODAY.
This is also using the energy demands of a typical home. Would this work for a iron recycling center? An aluminum refinery? A shipyard? Or even just a grocery store? How big of a battery pack would those take? Would the solar panels needed even fit on the same property? How would the costs compare to energy provided from coal, natural gas, or nuclear?
If we want to fix this problem as soon as possible then we'd be using nuclear power, not solar.
Also, think of the environmental implications. As it is now a typical business is surrounded with green space, at least that is the case around here. At a minimum you'd have a parking lot out in the sun with trees planted here and there. If we were using solar panels then the parking lots would be covered by solar panels, lit by artificial lighting and/or little windows in the collectors. No more grass and trees. It would be horribly depressing to live in a place like that.
Was not this in fact a plot point in some recent spy movies? I know fiction is not fact but if some filmmakers can figure this out then others can figure it out too.
What of a person that prints with a pattern of dots that makes the watermark unreadable? I can envision someone creating a printer driver that does exactly this and release it on the internet. The government might try to arrest the people that did this and have them put in prison but once it is out there it can't be taken back.
This watermark scheme will be defeated. Recent events put a spotlight on them and so I expect a trivial means to circumvent it to be out in about... 5... 4... 3...
People have been caught with leaked documents by tracing back who had access to these files, looking at folds, smudges, and other imperfections in the printed page, and so on. The watermark only adds another level of data to trace back the source.
This has been true in other cases. People could track back typewritten pages to certain models of typewriters by the font, spacing, and so on. Adding further analysis to things like wear patterns and manufacturing defects on the letters can add some additional data to work with. In the end it takes more than just tracing it back to the device to trace it back to the person since these devices (printers, typewriters, whatever) can be shared among several people.
We'll see this in tracing firearms. Law enforcement might have access to things like serial numbers, fired bullets, and other records but this is meaningless if people do things like, falsify the registration, file off serial numbers, steal/sell/borrow the weapon, change the barrel (making tracking by patterns on a fire bullet useless), beat up and abuse the weapon (which can alter wear patterns on the fired bullet, wear off serial numbers, etc.), and so on.
Fundamentally it comes down to understanding the technology one is using, and to mitigate the pitfalls. If you're ignorant or stupid then you'll probably get caught.
That I can agree with. If one doesn't know that the gun bought to commit a crime has had the bullet patterns recorded with law enforcement before the gun was even sold, and a recovered bullet and manufacturer records can trace it back to the owner, then this can get one caught by the police quickly. What this cannot do is trace it back to the person that fired the gun since the owner may not be the same person that fired the bullet. It can shortcut a lot of work that has to be done but it cannot eliminate it completely to get a conviction.
These firearm records have in fact been so useless in tracking criminals that they've been abandoned by many governments. They cost too much to maintain and they almost never trace back to the criminal. Anyone that claims them to be useful is an idiot or ignorant. Because of this I have to wonder about the utility of these color printer watermarks. They may have worked in a handful of cases but once people figure this out then it's trivial to circumvent and it becomes worthless and expensive.
thousands of gallons of bunker fuel, which is worth approximately fuck-all per gallon
I see your point but I'm not convinced it's valid. Not many ships use bunker fuel any more out of concerns of safety (it can be a fire hazard since it's so thick and sticky), emissions (it contains a lot of sulfur), and economy (marine diesel is often not much more in cost but more energy dense by volume and weight). Bunker fuel is still valuable as heating and cooking fuel, or perhaps if sold as a high grade crude oil. Marine diesel can in fact be used in a pickup truck since it's not much different than "summer" diesel at a filling station, and it's also valuable as cooking and heating fuel.
Whatever you are hauling does not have to be heavy to be valuable. Sure a wad of copper wires stripped from the ship might be "heavy" in that it weighs a couple hundred pounds but it's worth a lot of money on the scrap metal market. It might not grab as high of a value as ransoming the crew but it's also much less risk since it's not likely to get Navy SEALs to shoot you in the head over it.
I'm not a thief or law enforcement so I'll admit I may in fact know nothing about piracy.
This might also explain why my printer refuses to print in B&W when it's out of one of the color inks.
The black cartridge is a bit larger than the color ones, and I rarely use the inkjet for B&W printing. Once in a while I find myself in a situation where I want a printout, don't care if it's color or not, while I'm low on ink and my laser printer is acting up. The inkjet printer refuses to print and I'm forced to take the time out of my day to run for office supplies when I'd rather just do that on the weekend. This happened more often than I'd like and I realize it happened because I was not buying ink when I should. I have recently acquired a new laser printer and so this should not happen again for a long time.
Then again it might just be stupid software in the printer that does not know the difference between B&W printing and color printing when checking ink levels.
Elon Musk is not claiming that solar takes no space. He'll claim the space used is negligible, and it likely is with the expensive high density batteries he's using. He also freely admits that electric vehicles and solar power don't make sense in every case. Once in a while I'll check his math and roll my eyes at his claims but I don't know what he knows so I realize that he could be making an honest sale but I have my doubts.
I hear so many people complaining about Apple being "lame" because their products don't do what they want. My reply? "Don't buy it then."
I'm trying to understand this vocal hate of Apple. It's one thing to make a brand preference but another to plaster it on the internet and bumper stickers. I like Ford and Pepsi products but I don't put a "piss on Chevy" bumper sticker on my truck or wear Pepsi T-shirts. I used to wear an Apple ball cap all the time because it was given to me and I like to wear ball caps. I stopped wearing it because people felt the need to comment on it, and few of the comments were nice.
I buy Apple stuff and I buy stuff from their competitors. If you think I made a bad choice in my purchases then could you at least be nice about making your point? I'd rather you keep it to yourself unless I ask but be nice regardless.
There is zero space needed for solar. If every building had panels on the roof, then we'd produce more power than we consume.
The solar panels themselves may take no real space as it displaces the shingles we'd normally use but what of the inverters, batteries, and so on?
I did the math on converting my house to solar to make a point to a friend. I could in fact run my house on solar power by covering the roof in solar panels. This would require keeping my natural gas furnace and water heater, and maybe replacing my stove and dryer with natural gas too. In the summer I'd have enough extra capacity to charge up an electric hybrid vehicle for my daily commute but in the winter I'd have to fill it up with gasoline, diesel, or natural gas.
Then comes the space it'd take. I'd need two, three, or four large off the shelf inverters, depending largely on if I kept my large electric appliances or replaced them with gas. I computed for about a 48 hour reserve of electricity since a storm could block out the sun for a day, and I'm including the night before and after along with a safety reserve. This battery would be very large for my small house, something like 1 x 1 x 3 meters, if I recall correctly. It would weigh several tons. It would also make my cost of electricity roughly ten times what I pay now if I were to finance this over the expected life of the batteries, panels, and electronics.
Even if we were to get the price down to 1/10 of what I computed a couple years ago it would still take a lot of space. I'd have to dedicate the space equivalent to a small bedroom to the equipment, if we allow for room to do maintenance. If this is done on a utility scale then the batteries may not be in my basement but then they would have to be at a site built and maintained by the utility.
Sure, solar takes zero space if we ignore the electronics and storage needed to make it useful.
Wrong. Solar is already cheaper than coal in sunny states without subsidies.
What was proposed was solar panels WITH batteries, flywheels, or other storage. This storage costs money on top of those solar panels. For solar to be as cheap as coal AND still be available 24/7 means that solar has to be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than coal to make up for the costs of the storage. A tiny tiny fraction difference in price between solar and coal is insufficient to get people to switch because coal runs 24/7 in any weather, solar does not.
There's a reason coal isn't being built anymore and it's because it's uneconomical.
Coal is uneconomical because natural gas got real cheap, not because of solar, wind, or anything "green". If we don't keep replacing coal with something actually cheaper, like natural gas, then energy prices will increase. Trump has put some pro-nuclear people in his administration this might mean we'll start building more nuclear power plants at a rate close to what we did 40 or 50 years ago and we'll see energy get even cheaper.
You can claim that solar will get cheaper in time but that does not help me today. I want natural gas and nuclear. When or if solar with storage gets cheaper than natural gas, nuclear, and coal, then we can talk about switching over.
You've just moved the goalposts.
How? I thought we we comparing coal to wind and solar in order to get clean and reliable energy.
I was addressing the AC's unpredictability concern.
Yes you did, and you claimed the problem was "solved" when it is not. What you proposed would mean the cost of that electricity would be at least double what it costs if produced by coal.
You're talking about the physical size of infrastructure, a wholly unrelated topic, and you've dragged nuclear into it too for reasons I can't fathom.
The physical size relates to cost and therefore the ability to solve this problem. Cost of the alternate is fundamental to the decision to use that alternate. Nuclear was mentioned as that is a clean energy source, cleaner than coal, wind, or solar, and at a cost comparable to coal. I mention nuclear because if we are looking for something better than what we are doing now then nuclear needs to be considered among the solutions, especially if reliability of the power source is a concern.
This is already a solved problem.
You clearly don't believe we're industrious enough to use an "unpredictable" energy source, so you're suggesting we should just call it quits instead.
It is NOT a solved problem and as industrious as Americans are they cannot break the laws of physics.
The problem with batteries, flywheels, and such is that they use materials to produce. This means that they take up space, cost money, and must come from something. This is mostly about cost since the way we measure space and materials is on how much it costs. The cost of solar and wind power will always cost more than coal and nuclear power because it takes more material and space to get the same output. This is especially true since the storage systems and redundant power also take more space and material.
We can add in labor costs too. People make a big deal on how wind and solar now employs as much people as coal now, or whatever the claim is. This not good, it is very bad. Coal, nuclear, and natural gas each produces about 1/3rd of the electricity in the USA, while wind and solar combined produces about 1/20th. If you translate that manpower into dollars then you have another cost problem above the space and material costs.
I could have agreed with you if you stuck with skin color and sexual orientation. Religion is a choice just like what sport teams you like. Many people choose to be the same religion as their parents just like they choose to be fans of the same sport teams as their parents.
To someone willing to kill another over their choice of sport teams then in the mind of that deranged individual the choice of sport teams is as fundamental as religion. What a "hate crime" is at its core is "thought crime". Because someone thought the "wrong" thoughts the government is going to punish that person more severely. That's not right.
This especially bothers me when the hate crime laws are applied when it should not and is not applied when it is clear the law was violated. A bunch of black kids that abused a white kid is not likely to have a hate crime enhancement to their punishment, but if a white kid kills a black kid over what sport teams they cheered for then its now a "hate crime". Justice should be blind to such things.
I agree but it seems so many people fail to understand this. I've heard about passenger aircraft without crews for a long time. I know this won't happen. One reason is that as annoying as it might look to people that fly regularly those safety briefings at the beginning of the flight is important. Even if you don't care if your passengers are comfortable, or even if they survive, a 25 kg child getting tossed about in the cabin during turbulence can damage the plane. Having someone on the plane to check for seat belts and whatever is cheap insurance.
In the case of moving cargo the legal liabilities may be much lower but the cargo still has value. Letting a passenger die can get someone in prison while losing a billion dollar airplane or ship likely will not. This still has a cost to the people that own and operate this vehicles. At that price level having a trained crew of four is nothing. Put the people on an overlapping shifts of 8 or 12 hours and you can have one guy or two look out for icebergs or whatever while the other cooks the food, washes dishes, and changes light bulbs.
I've talked to people that sailed the open ocean and it can be days of boredom punctuated by seconds of excitement. Those seconds are important as those can mean loss of the ship if no one is there to do something about it. They can put in redundant systems and what not to reduce the need for crew but I find it difficult to think that we'll ever do away with the crew entirely.
Does it turn into a giant mecha in case of kaiju?
Yes. Of course.
It is hard to buy acetylene in Somalia.
Cutting torches can be found for a number of different fuels like gasoline and propane. I'd think the limiting factor would be more in the access to bottled oxygen. This isn't going to be precision work by any means so compressed air and whatever they use to fuel their boats should be sufficient.
It's been a while since I've seen anyone use a torch so I don't recall exactly what one needs to make it work. I've heard of people making "water torches" that electrolyze water and burn the resulting oxygen-hydrogen mix. I don't know if this is suitable for cutting through a steel bulkhead in any reasonable time though.
Pirates usually target the crew, and hold the crew as hostage.
You don't think the cargo has any value? Or the ship itself? I'd think just the fuel in the tanks would be a valuable target for theft, and I don't mean a tanker ship. Any ship at sea will need a lot of fuel to propel itself and that is worth money.
If they can cut through the bulkhead, disable the navigation systems, then they have all kinds of time to take what they can get. They might not be able to take the ship, or even much of the cargo, but they can strip the ship of parts, siphon off its fuel, or just make it clear it will be scuttled if ransom isn't paid.
Taking the crew hostage is likely the highest pay off for the least skill and labor in piracy. Lacking that they can still get a lot out of a ship lacking a crew. It just means they have to find someone with a cutting torch that knows how to use it. That should pay for itself on the first time out.
An excellent post but you didn't really address the issue of a "hate crime" only the differing levels of homicide. In many places there's generally three or four levels of criminal homicide, which addresses criminal negligence resulting in death, manslaughter (which might be the same as the first), second degree murder (an intentional act with intent to kill), first degree murder (intentional homicide with premeditation or of a government official). What the concept of "hate crime" does is add to the punishment if the court can find a case of the accused acting against the victim because the victim was some sort minority, or other protected class of person, and the accused is not a member of some protected class.
This concept of "hate crime" violates the concept of the law being blind to the kind of person being accused. All people should be equal under the law. If a person kills another with premeditated intent then that should be murder in the first degree. All instances of murder one is a "hate crime" because people don't generally kill people they love. Why one kills another is important, and should be the case up to a point, do we really need to punish people more severely because of the differences in skin color, religion, sexual orientation, or whatever?
If a Packers fan kills a Bears fan because the Bears fan insulted the Packers then is that not just as much a "hate crime" if a Muslim kills a Christian because the Christian insulted Mohammed? Each case is a violation of rights on all kinds of levels, a serious crime was committed in both cases, so don't think I'm saying either should not be punished severely. I'm just having a tough time thinking that one is "greater" crime than the other.
I also don't like these "with a gun" laws. People will kill others by stabbing, tossing out windows, running them over, lighting them on fire, beating them with a pipe in the conservatory, or hanging them by rope in the kitchen. If a person kills by shooting another with a revolver in the library though then that is some special level of evil that must be punished extra severely... or something. Life isn't a game of Cluedo. Then again, maybe we should make it more like a game, with rules spelled out in advance that everyone must follow equally. Reverend Green should get the same punishment for a crime as Mrs. White.
Then maybe you need to put those take home dollars towards a different clinic. You have more choices than I do. With the VA I can take their care or leave it, by leaving it I have to pay for it with my tax dollars AND still have to pay for private care. You can shop for a different clinic with your money if you are not happy.
It also bothers me that you are so forgiving of your tax money going towards second rate care.
If the FDA is not requiring these devices to be accurate and precise then could not some private entity offer validation services of their own? I'd think a seal of approval for accuracy would be worth something for both makers and consumers, that can translate to real money.
Think of the Underwriters Laboratory, it is a private company that tests and approves electrical devices for safety. People that try to sell something not approved by them will have problems. Stores are not likely to even put them on shelves if not UL approved.
I've also seen a bunch of comments on how physicians and drug makers make a lot of money on blood pressure medications and so they are not really interested in an accurate blood pressure meter. I don't agree as I'd think that there is a lot of liability in prescribing medications for those that do not need it.
Let's assume that this is true that since physicians and drug makers are set on handing out meds for money then would not market forces work in offering alternatives? Do not insurance companies play a role? It's rare for people to pay for medical care out of pocket. The insurance companies see a payout for high blood pressure as a cost. I'd think that it would be in their best interest to make sure that those that truly have high blood pressure have it treated and those that don't are not given medications that can have harmful side effects.
I think that if this a real problem then some insurance companies should get together and make sure these meters work like they should. I would think that fixing the meters could save them a lot of money in payouts for medications and care. It would also have the side effect of a healthy public. If appealing to profit doesn't work then appealing to principles should.
I have a foot problem and every time I go to see a physician I have a nurse escort me down this long hallway (maybe not so long really but MY FEET HURT) to check my weight. After I get weighed I go further down the hall to an office where I am sat down and the nurse asks me about all kinds of different diseases I could have (but likely don't, but now I'm thinking if I really do). At about this point I get my blood pressure, pulse rate, and temperature taken. My blood pressure almost always reads high. Some nurses will have me sit for a bit and take it again, this time talking about the weather or something else much less stressful than if I have skin cancer or not. This second reading is almost always much lower.
Recently I was complaining about this odd nurse behavior with my brother and he tells me that he looked up the process they are supposed to use in taking blood pressure. You are supposed to be sitting quietly (as in not talking and certainly not talking about heart failure or testicular cancer) for 15 minutes or more before they take your blood pressure. The nurses were not following proper procedures.
A couple years ago the physician saw my series of high blood pressure readings and put me on blood pressure medication and gave me a blood pressure meter to take home. My blood pressure was fine at home, even before the blood pressure medicine had a chance to take effect. The next time I saw the physician I mentioned this and she says I don't have to take the medicine any more.
i don't know if they've made some note in my file or something but my blood pressure is rarely mentioned any more. Any high readings are waved away as a result of my pain.
Another thing, this is the care I'm getting from the Veteran clinics. American tax dollars at work. Nurses that don't bother to take a proper blood pressure, physicians that seem willing to offer meds to fix a problem than bother to investigate a cause, and just general poor care. That's whet government funded care looks like.
I still don't get the Apple thing at all.
Perhaps I can help.
Computers just got so reliable, inexpensive, and integrated now that it just does not make sense for a large portion of the population to upgrade or repair computers on their own. I've seen this happen in less than five years at work.
It used to be that we'd have parts on hand to replace all kinds of components on computers. We had a box of Ethernet cards. We had a box of video cards. Another box with RAM. A few other boxes of more random parts like sound cards, parallel port cards, hard drive controllers, a motherboard or two, serial cards, a few spare power supplies, and so on. Every so often we clean out the server room and out go these spare parts as they become outdated and not replaced with a current equivalent. Or rather the equivalent is now just keeping a few more spare computers on hand.
How do we fix computers now? If the computer is a bit older and it comes in for a software refresh then we'll put in some RAM that was scavenged from a computer that was disposed of. If the problem can be traced to a bad hard drive then it's replaced. Any other hardware problem and the computer is sent back under warranty, or if it's not under warranty then it's simply replaced. We still have a box of video cards but most of the computers now don't even have a slot to put a video card into. Given that these cards have DVI and HDMI ports and DisplayPort is pretty much the default now I expect that we won't even keep video cards on hand soon.
I suspect that in another five years we won't even bother with RAM and hard drives. Apple has simply decided to cater to the market that sees the computer as a "whole" and not a collection of components. They've been operating under this philosophy for a long time with their low end computers. Even with higher end computers this is becoming the norm.
Apple is not alone in this philosophy. We don't have any Apple computers at work but all the new ones look a lot like an iMac or Mac Mini in their features and form. The servers are getting to be "black boxes" now and aren't upgraded, just replaced.
Computers just got so cheap that it's just not worth the time to fix them or upgrade them any more.
Even with decreasing oil use we would still need to build new pipelines because pipelines wear out and demands shift.
There is little doubt to those that know what they are talking about that we will still be burning oil in 30, 50, or perhaps 100 years. The dispute is over how much we will need.
Another thing, is exporting oil out of the USA so bad? I'm pretty sure the USA has much better rules on worker safety and environmental protection. The USA needs money too. If we don't export this oil then other nations will buy it from dictatorial hellholes and use that money to buy weapons they use against US citizens and allies. US oil producers getting a profit benefits me in many ways, including more jobs for Americans.
Yeah something taking a while is a good reason not to start.
I didn't say that. I said that if we start making that transition now it will take decades to complete. In the mean time we will continue to burn oil. We can move that oil by train or by pipes. Moving by pipes takes less energy, produces less pollution, and is much less likely to spill. The people protesting these pipelines out of a concern for the environment are ignorant fools.
look, if you want emissions down in USA it is rather simple, start co2 taxing like many places in the world.
Taxes won't help. All they will do is make everyone poorer. I've heard talks from people working on alternative energy and funding dries up when taxes are increased. People need the money and freedom to develop the next best thing. Oh, and these people complain about the cost of energy. It takes a lot of energy to weld windmills together and get them tested. Moving the windmills to the site means transport by truck.
When it comes down to it energy is energy. If carbon fuels are taxed then all energy prices go up. This will always be the case until we no longer burn fossil fuels. Until then adding taxes on the fuels will only slow down the transition, not increase it.
Think about it. You have an electric train that has a cost of $10 per whatever (I'm not feeling creative enough to thing of proper units right now). I have a diesel train that can do it at $15 per whatever. After I add in overhead and profit margin I come up with a total of $20 per whatever to charge. You want business and maximum profits and so you charge $19 and get most of the business.
Then a carbon tax comes along, my costs just went up to $20. If I want to make any profit at all I have to raise my price. I do some thinking, and I decide I have to charge $25. What are you going to do? You've already got as much business as you can handle. Your clients aren't going to pick me unless they have to. Unless you also raise your prices, to something like $23, you are going to get hassled by stockholders in your company and potentially sued for not doing your duty as the operator to maximize profits.
Also, some of what you need for your business will move to you by my and other more expensive trains. At some point you will have to raise prices as the taxes work their way into the prices of goods. Who wins on this? The government. Who loses? EVERYONE.
I've also talked to people that deal in ethanol. If you want to see a taxation and regulation nightmare then look at what it takes to open an ethanol fuel plant. The prohibition of alcohol may have ended but the taxes never did. If you want to see bio-fuels get some development then we need to get rid of the alcohol taxes.