Which further muddies the waters with regard to ocean levels rising with temperature. If the atmosphere can hold more water vapor as the temperature increases, and more water will evaporate as the temperature increases, it seems we have a control mechanism for ocean levels. Temperature is still a concern and, if what I just posited is at all correct, thermal runaway might result. Of course, this isn't a field I'm all that intimately familiar with, so I'm probably wrong here; just food for thought, though, for those more in the know.
I will be amazed if the study took into account the cost of installing renewable energy generation, both in monetary and environmental terms, because these studies literally never do. They always sound great at first glance, and they certainly get their authors a fuckton of grant money but, in the end, someone finally puts two and two together and the idea gets scrapped.
For example, an array of solar panels big enough to be used for massive-scale desalinization would likely put out more CO2 during the production of the panels themselves than the array could remove in its lifetime; and that's before factoring in the concrete that will be required for the installation (which, honestly, is negligible in comparison). Your typical utility-sized solar panel puts out 50g of CO2 for every KWh it will be able to produce during its lifetime, while this process supposedly removes 1 ton of CO2 for every gigajoule of electricity used, according to TFS. 1 gigajoule of electricity is 277.77777... KWh, which we'll refer to as 277.8 KWh, for simplicity.
50g per KWh produced, multiplied by 277.8 KWh to remove a ton, is just shy of 14Kg produced for every ton removed. Okay, that's actually not so bad and I'll admit, maybe there's something to this, assuming the 1 ton per Gj figure is achievable at less than ideal conditions, for more than a few moments at a time, if at all. Of course, that also assumes that 100% of the power generated goes to this purpose, which is all but guaranteed not to be the case.
But that's only considering one environmental factor: CO2. There are many others.
We have excess heat reflected back into the atmosphere by these massive arrays of panels, increased ocean acidity (despite what is claimed in TFS, I'll address this), loss of forest which may ultimately have been secluding more CO2 than we can recapture using this method (assuming we want to install these solar arrays in a climate that will maximize their lifespan; we could run them in the desert where they'll be covered in dust and sand constantly, not running at max efficiency for their lifespan, and run hot which shortens that lifespan, throwing their grams-of-CO2-per-KWh through the roof and creating a disposal issue), and pollution from the chemicals used in the production of the panels, as well as their disposal. Oh, and resource depletion, as we would need a lot of panels for something like this.
Let's tackle the first non-blatantly-obvious claim I've made, and one that affects every energy source and not just solar, first: increased ocean acidity. While we needn't necessarily worry about increased salinity, since there is a market for sea salt (which will suddenly become quite cheap if we're doing ocean electrolysis at this scale), a portion of the solid byproduct of ocean electrolysis is a group of pure acids, which would likely find their way back into the ocean. Combined with reduced water levels (the stored hydrogen represents lost water), acidity rises. Yes, very slowly over time, sort of like how our current situation happened, and sort of like how a solution like this will also act very slowly and over a long period of time; this is something that, if it works, we will have to keep up indefinitely. Unless the demand for hydrogen outpaces production via this method, we will eventually acidify the oceans simply by trying to maintain safe atmospheric CO2 levels, assuming it doesn't happen before we get there.
Loss of forest is, for me, a real concern. While you can throw a solar array in the middle of the desert and, at first glance, that appears to be the ideal solution, it's truly far from ideal. The increased heat during the day and extreme temperature swings at night wreak havoc on solar panels, shortening their lifespan and driving down their efficiency. This can be mitigated by water cooling during the panels the day and heating them during the night, but that means less of there output is used for this process, further reducing efficiency. Dus
The ads are targeted at the time of the request. If my ad blocker prevents the request, the targeted ad was never generated (the ad network never had me in its sights) and I was not targeted.
To use your own analogy, if you never see me, you never pick up the rifle to target me, even if you might have a file on me that details my past whereabouts and activities.
I just explained the difference 2 posts up, it's not my fault you don't get it. Maybe this will help:
track
trak/
verb
1.
follow the course or trail of (someone or something), typically in order to find them or note their location at various points.
target
tärt/
verb
1.
select as an object of attention or attack.
If we're all being tracked, none of us have been selected, so the tracking we are discussing here isn't targeting anyone. The information collected is used to target ads, which don't get to me, ergo I am not being targeted, though I am being tracked. Hell, I'm even being tracked with the intent to target me with ads and other offers but, at least today, I still maintain control of whether I'm actually targeted or not. Might that change in the future? Not while Facebook, Twitter, and the like remain the minority; so let's ensure that they do.
You can be targeted through other vectors than traditional ads, e.g. notification flows, news flows, ads-or-propaganda-disguised-as-news, product placement
And all of those are ads for one thing or another; products, events, political candidates... If we're avoiding these platforms, we aren't seeing them.
insurance company policies
You mean the way the insurers share information behind the scenes so you can't file a claim with one and jump to another to drop your rate (e.g. insurance fraud)? Or are you talking about them scraping Facebook and other social media (e.g. one of the platforms we avoid)?
employability
Same.
police knocking on your door
Well, I mean, if you give an immature internet troll your address or you're making terrorist threats... Got any examples where that wasn't the case?
As an extreme, think China. The view we outsiders get is that if they collect the wrong data about you, they will *target* you in a way that no ad-blocker will stop.
In that case, "they" is the government. Here, they still have to validate that data in some way or another to do any more than investigate you (which they're constantly doing anyway), and I only see that becoming stronger as more and more data is gathered. If that weren't the case crime would no longer be a problem and we'd see people being arrested by the feds for visiting places in the same parking lot as marijuana dispensaries because that's still federally illegal and, near as they can tell, that's why you parked in that lot; we don't have that situation and we're not going to get there as long as we maintain our 2nd.
Not necessarily. How can an ad you aren't seeing target you? Now yes, targeting does imply tracking, but not the other way around. I keep track of my wallet, keys, and phone, but rarely target them.
Did you miss the latter half of my comment? I mean, you quoted it, so I assume you read it and just didn't get it...
In the first part of your comment you said:
I remember the original Samsung smartphones. They were so similar to the 1-3G iPhones I inadvertently walked off with a Samsung phone a couple of times when I mistook one for my iPhone 3G.
Then, you linked to a photo of Samsung's original smartphones, the iPhone, and phones Samsung released after the iPhone, which would not be Samsung's original smartphones. That's what the last line of my comment was pointing out, which doesn't contradict me saying the following:
Seems Apple was the one copying, if what you say is true.
Because what you say is not true, Samsung's original smartphones looked nothing like the iPhone.
So Samsung has been making mobile phones for a while. What the hell does that have to do with anything?
You answered your own question:
I remember the original Samsung smartphones. They were so similar to the 1-3G iPhones I inadvertently walked off with a Samsung phone a couple of times when I mistook one for my iPhone 3G.
Seems Apple was the one copying, if what you say is true.
[clicks link to view image]
Oh.
Well, now...
If the original Samsung smartphones look like iPhones to you, you might need to get your eyes checked.
What Consumer Reports found is that it wasn't more likely to bend than other premium phones when pressure was applied in the specific way Consumer Reports tested the device. Where the two disagree (and they do), you can be fairly certain that Apple's testing was more thorough and correct than CR's, and should tend to favor that. I can pick out flaws in CR's testing, but I'll give you a big one right out of the gate: their results are the opposite of Apple's, with the 6 being more likely to bend than the 6 Plus.
Somebody got it wrong, and my money is on the company with a decades-long history of flubbing these sorts of tests.
But for some reason people seem to hold Apple to some higher standard of quality,
Probably because the company itself, along with its group of obnoxious fanbois, insist that they have always met that standard, and that they still do today.
usually while simultaneously complaining about how poor quality their products are.
Probably because quality is relative and a lower-middle-tier product that would be perfectly acceptable if that's what you had paid fo and expected to get becomes complete crap when it's advertised and priced as high-end. Think about it: nobody complains when their $20 pair of Wal Mart shoes only lasts a year; everybody would be bitching if that were true of a $200 pair, though.
Go look at some objective side-by-side comparisons of Apple and non-Apple laptops sometime. Look at the best Apple has to offer vs the best LeNovo or Dell has to offer, and tell me you still think Apple isn't junk for the price. Do they compare to the lower-middle-end of the typical PC manufacturer's range? Sure; but they're not sold as that and they cost considerably more than that. That's why it's a problem.
Sent from my 2016 MacBook Pro which, thankfully, isn't having keyboard issues this week.
Phone requires a reboot if the SIM is removed and reinserted, before it will read the SIM; if we were talking about cache in RAM, this conversation wouldn't be happening.
Slashdot Mirror
Which further muddies the waters with regard to ocean levels rising with temperature. If the atmosphere can hold more water vapor as the temperature increases, and more water will evaporate as the temperature increases, it seems we have a control mechanism for ocean levels. Temperature is still a concern and, if what I just posited is at all correct, thermal runaway might result. Of course, this isn't a field I'm all that intimately familiar with, so I'm probably wrong here; just food for thought, though, for those more in the know.
I will be amazed if the study took into account the cost of installing renewable energy generation, both in monetary and environmental terms, because these studies literally never do. They always sound great at first glance, and they certainly get their authors a fuckton of grant money but, in the end, someone finally puts two and two together and the idea gets scrapped.
For example, an array of solar panels big enough to be used for massive-scale desalinization would likely put out more CO2 during the production of the panels themselves than the array could remove in its lifetime; and that's before factoring in the concrete that will be required for the installation (which, honestly, is negligible in comparison). Your typical utility-sized solar panel puts out 50g of CO2 for every KWh it will be able to produce during its lifetime, while this process supposedly removes 1 ton of CO2 for every gigajoule of electricity used, according to TFS. 1 gigajoule of electricity is 277.77777... KWh, which we'll refer to as 277.8 KWh, for simplicity.
50g per KWh produced, multiplied by 277.8 KWh to remove a ton, is just shy of 14Kg produced for every ton removed. Okay, that's actually not so bad and I'll admit, maybe there's something to this, assuming the 1 ton per Gj figure is achievable at less than ideal conditions, for more than a few moments at a time, if at all. Of course, that also assumes that 100% of the power generated goes to this purpose, which is all but guaranteed not to be the case.
But that's only considering one environmental factor: CO2. There are many others.
We have excess heat reflected back into the atmosphere by these massive arrays of panels, increased ocean acidity (despite what is claimed in TFS, I'll address this), loss of forest which may ultimately have been secluding more CO2 than we can recapture using this method (assuming we want to install these solar arrays in a climate that will maximize their lifespan; we could run them in the desert where they'll be covered in dust and sand constantly, not running at max efficiency for their lifespan, and run hot which shortens that lifespan, throwing their grams-of-CO2-per-KWh through the roof and creating a disposal issue), and pollution from the chemicals used in the production of the panels, as well as their disposal. Oh, and resource depletion, as we would need a lot of panels for something like this.
Let's tackle the first non-blatantly-obvious claim I've made, and one that affects every energy source and not just solar, first: increased ocean acidity. While we needn't necessarily worry about increased salinity, since there is a market for sea salt (which will suddenly become quite cheap if we're doing ocean electrolysis at this scale), a portion of the solid byproduct of ocean electrolysis is a group of pure acids, which would likely find their way back into the ocean. Combined with reduced water levels (the stored hydrogen represents lost water), acidity rises. Yes, very slowly over time, sort of like how our current situation happened, and sort of like how a solution like this will also act very slowly and over a long period of time; this is something that, if it works, we will have to keep up indefinitely. Unless the demand for hydrogen outpaces production via this method, we will eventually acidify the oceans simply by trying to maintain safe atmospheric CO2 levels, assuming it doesn't happen before we get there.
Loss of forest is, for me, a real concern. While you can throw a solar array in the middle of the desert and, at first glance, that appears to be the ideal solution, it's truly far from ideal. The increased heat during the day and extreme temperature swings at night wreak havoc on solar panels, shortening their lifespan and driving down their efficiency. This can be mitigated by water cooling during the panels the day and heating them during the night, but that means less of there output is used for this process, further reducing efficiency. Dus
Hey, I'm just glad there was a gun analogy where nobody died. Good on you for that, sir.
The ads are targeted at the time of the request. If my ad blocker prevents the request, the targeted ad was never generated (the ad network never had me in its sights) and I was not targeted.
To use your own analogy, if you never see me, you never pick up the rifle to target me, even if you might have a file on me that details my past whereabouts and activities.
So does the Ocean Spray in my fridge if I leave it there long enough.
I just explained the difference 2 posts up, it's not my fault you don't get it. Maybe this will help:
track
trak/
verb
1. follow the course or trail of (someone or something), typically in order to find them or note their location at various points.
target
tärt/ verb
1. select as an object of attention or attack.
If we're all being tracked, none of us have been selected, so the tracking we are discussing here isn't targeting anyone. The information collected is used to target ads, which don't get to me, ergo I am not being targeted, though I am being tracked. Hell, I'm even being tracked with the intent to target me with ads and other offers but, at least today, I still maintain control of whether I'm actually targeted or not. Might that change in the future? Not while Facebook, Twitter, and the like remain the minority; so let's ensure that they do.
You can be targeted through other vectors than traditional ads, e.g. notification flows, news flows, ads-or-propaganda-disguised-as-news, product placement
And all of those are ads for one thing or another; products, events, political candidates... If we're avoiding these platforms, we aren't seeing them.
insurance company policies
You mean the way the insurers share information behind the scenes so you can't file a claim with one and jump to another to drop your rate (e.g. insurance fraud)? Or are you talking about them scraping Facebook and other social media (e.g. one of the platforms we avoid)?
employability
Same.
police knocking on your door
Well, I mean, if you give an immature internet troll your address or you're making terrorist threats... Got any examples where that wasn't the case?
As an extreme, think China. The view we outsiders get is that if they collect the wrong data about you, they will *target* you in a way that no ad-blocker will stop.
In that case, "they" is the government. Here, they still have to validate that data in some way or another to do any more than investigate you (which they're constantly doing anyway), and I only see that becoming stronger as more and more data is gathered. If that weren't the case crime would no longer be a problem and we'd see people being arrested by the feds for visiting places in the same parking lot as marijuana dispensaries because that's still federally illegal and, near as they can tell, that's why you parked in that lot; we don't have that situation and we're not going to get there as long as we maintain our 2nd.
And we're talking about ads targeting you. Not tracking. Please, do try to keep up.
Not necessarily. How can an ad you aren't seeing target you? Now yes, targeting does imply tracking, but not the other way around. I keep track of my wallet, keys, and phone, but rarely target them.
He said targeted, not tracked.
In the first part of your comment you said:
I remember the original Samsung smartphones. They were so similar to the 1-3G iPhones I inadvertently walked off with a Samsung phone a couple of times when I mistook one for my iPhone 3G.
Then, you linked to a photo of Samsung's original smartphones, the iPhone, and phones Samsung released after the iPhone, which would not be Samsung's original smartphones. That's what the last line of my comment was pointing out, which doesn't contradict me saying the following:
Seems Apple was the one copying, if what you say is true.
Because what you say is not true, Samsung's original smartphones looked nothing like the iPhone.
So Samsung has been making mobile phones for a while. What the hell does that have to do with anything?
You answered your own question:
I remember the original Samsung smartphones. They were so similar to the 1-3G iPhones I inadvertently walked off with a Samsung phone a couple of times when I mistook one for my iPhone 3G.
Seems Apple was the one copying, if what you say is true.
[clicks link to view image]
Oh.
Well, now...
If the original Samsung smartphones look like iPhones to you, you might need to get your eyes checked.
Then you never learn.
Wait, I thought guns were what is wrong with people. Shit, I just can't keep up anymore; did we solve that "problem" already?
Look more closely...
good information; so updating only the PIN leaves visible traces elsewhere on the card? still seems like bad design.
Dude, when the hell did you find the time to write the Linux version? Seems like you're here posting this shit 24/7.
(No changing facts written in stone long ago...)
No, just opinions written in bits.
Yes, and now that my perspective has changed I see that it is the work of an abject madman. Or do you not change your opinions as new facts arise?
Somebody got it wrong, and my money is on the company with a decades-long history of flubbing these sorts of tests.
But for some reason people seem to hold Apple to some higher standard of quality,
Probably because the company itself, along with its group of obnoxious fanbois, insist that they have always met that standard, and that they still do today.
usually while simultaneously complaining about how poor quality their products are.
Probably because quality is relative and a lower-middle-tier product that would be perfectly acceptable if that's what you had paid fo and expected to get becomes complete crap when it's advertised and priced as high-end. Think about it: nobody complains when their $20 pair of Wal Mart shoes only lasts a year; everybody would be bitching if that were true of a $200 pair, though.
Go look at some objective side-by-side comparisons of Apple and non-Apple laptops sometime. Look at the best Apple has to offer vs the best LeNovo or Dell has to offer, and tell me you still think Apple isn't junk for the price. Do they compare to the lower-middle-end of the typical PC manufacturer's range? Sure; but they're not sold as that and they cost considerably more than that. That's why it's a problem.
Sent from my 2016 MacBook Pro which, thankfully, isn't having keyboard issues this week.
Somehow, it just doesn't seem that secure to hint at your contents prior to authentications. You sure that's how it works?
Phone requires a reboot if the SIM is removed and reinserted, before it will read the SIM; if we were talking about cache in RAM, this conversation wouldn't be happening.
I did? Where?
Thank you for proving my point.
Now there's a reasonable argument. You see, the one I replied to was not.