Job ad bullet points are used as filters and do a great job (ha!) of filtering out all of the ideal candidates in favor of the ones that will gladly lie about their skill sets yet can't write anything more trivial than strcpy() on a whiteboard. Maybe you stop looking for "workers with cloud experience" and start looking for "workers that have great system administration skills who we'll train to use the specific 'cloud' thingy we're using this month." After all, what these job posts that demand a "hit the ground running" candidate fail to realize is that they have to train the new employee in the operations and peculiarities unique to their business anyway.
This, sooooo much this!
HR is the real problem here and they need to be fired.
Using a taser on someone who is unarmed? Is that really necessary? I'm certain there are some instances where it's a legitimate option but I feel like it's far more likely that tasers are considered by police to be non-lethal weapons when in fact they are merely less-lethal weapons. The "don't tase me, bro" incident is a perfect example of this abuse of force.
“One CO2 collector has the same footprint as a tree,” says Wurzbacher. “It takes 50 tons of CO2 out of the air every year. A corresponding tree would take 50 kilograms of the air every year. It’s a factor of a thousand. So in order to achieve the same, you would need 1,000 times less area than you would require for plants growing.” The CO2 collectors can also be used in areas that wouldn’t be suitable for agriculture, helping preserve land needed for farming, and they don’t require a water source, unlike some afforestation efforts. They can also run on renewable energy.
If wind was cheaper then we should be able to do without wind subsidies. Every time the possibility of removing those subsidies is mentioned though the tree huggers scream. Wind power as it is now cannot survive without subsidies, subsidies from a coal and nuclear powered economy.
Just add a tax based on the amount money needed to clean up the pollution from each energy source. Wind will thrive because energy from fossil fuel would actually cost companies money. When we do that, we can strip all subsidies from the energy sector.
"The better first step would be to add a pollution tax."
We have those, they are called "taxes". Everything we do produces "pollution" (if we include CO2 as pollution) and everything is taxed. Do you mean just raising tax rates?
We do not tax specifically for the volume of pollution something creates. That's what should be taxed. The tax also needs to be high enough to cover the cost of cleaning up the pollution.
At some point we need to recognize the diminishing returns on doing more.
When we reach the point where we're removing more CO2 from the atmosphere than we're putting out, that's when we can "go into maintenance mode".
That is we hit a wall of diminishing returns if we keep this NIMBY attitude on nuclear power.
Currently, nuclear power isn't very cost effective and it's very centralized which makes it a vulnerability. Distributed solar power is a better idea and reduces the amount of infrastructure that needs to be maintained. It won't work everywhere but insisting on perfection prevents improvement. It would be nice if the government would fund research into next gen reactors which don't have an abundance of fissile material and thus are incapable of a meltdown but those don't make weapons, so they will not fund it. It's best we do what we can to improve the situation instead of waiting for silver bullet solutions.
We could go a long way yet with nuclear power. Barring that though we've pretty much hit a wall.
We're not even close to hitting a wall. The wall isn't even in sight.
I was enjoying 2016, the year of the Linux desktop, on my Linux desktop and saw the news and thought, "Wow, after having the first black president, we're going to have the first woman president. Things are only going to go up from here!" I was so innocent back then.
A better first step would be to turn off the machines that actively add carbon to the air.
That would be ideal but we have to work within government capabilities without authoritarian rule. The better first step would be to add a pollution tax. It would be onerous enough that non-polluting solutions would become the more desirable solutions from a financial standpoint. The taxes should be used to help clean up the pollution and subsidize solutions for the poor (because they cannot afford the initial investment needed).
Cool, but then you have to figure out how to power those machines.
Solar and wind. This isn't rocket science.
Are we currently capable of creating a CO2-removing machine that is more power-efficient than a tree?
Trees don't permanently remove CO2 from the atmosphere. If they did then there wouldn't be any CO2 for them. Also, please don't argue that animals are supplying the CO2 they need because animal-life is a recent development compared to plant-life.
What we have done is removed a fuckload of buried carbon and propelled it into the atmosphere. If we wanted to involve trees, it would be planting a huge amount of trees, uprooting them at their prime and then burying them deep underground. The better option is to use machines to capture CO2 and then use chemistry to split it into carbon and oxygen. We can make various things with these but the most space efficient would be to make diamonds and release the oxygen. Considering we've released over a trillion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, space should be a consideration.
You could cover the entire planet surface with trees and it still wouldn't be enough. It's time to start using technology to produce billions of machines that actively and permanently remove carbon from the air.
In addition discovering trigonometry, the tablet shows Babylonia showed up hung over to their trigonometry mid-term exam and barely got a passing grade. Lucky for Babylonia, grading on a curve was millennia away from being invented.
Politically motivated violence (short of genocide) has been shown to be ineffective and many times counterproductive. However, if you think genocide is the answer then you have lost sight of what you were fighting for. Combating extremism with more extremism is a losing move.
I'm a jew, and I've been called a nazi for saying things like "mao killed more people than hitler".
It's best to add context. Mao killed more people though Hitler killed more Jews. It's not recommend that you reverse that statement lest people get the wrong idea.
This is about large social media platforms and news aggregators rather than the internet or webpages in general. Here's the thing, this problem has already been solved (multiple times) which they admit to in the paper but don't think it's good enough because... not enough people use them and they aren't integrated into the "mega-platforms".
Sure sounds to me like the neo-nazis and their bile spewing kin aren't taking being kicked off twitter/facebook very well.
56K!? Seriously, you had 56K! You lucky SOB! In my day we felt lucky to be able to cradle our handsets into 300 baud modem. The data had to climb uphill, in the snow, both ways.
300 baud modem? When I was your age we had to "transfer data" over a radio using the NATO phonetic alphabet and we liked it! No respect, I say, you kids got no respect!
And if you didn't pay the taxes, anyone would be free to murder you and take your money without cause. Laws are just words with nothing to enforce them.
Until they add GUI, there's no point. And they 99% likely know that already.
Actually, the purported reason they are doing this is to enable servers written in.net to run on Linux machines. As far as I can tell, they are trying to nudge.Net into the business/server world to displace Java.
As far as I'm concerned, Oracle and Microsoft can both choke on their own vomit.
Slashdot Mirror
Next time you can try to subdue the 230lb gorilla high out of his gourd on Meth then... Let me know how that works out for you.
Did you fail the literacy test? I wrote, "I'm certain there are some instances where it's a legitimate option". How did you not see that?
Job ad bullet points are used as filters and do a great job (ha!) of filtering out all of the ideal candidates in favor of the ones that will gladly lie about their skill sets yet can't write anything more trivial than strcpy() on a whiteboard. Maybe you stop looking for "workers with cloud experience" and start looking for "workers that have great system administration skills who we'll train to use the specific 'cloud' thingy we're using this month." After all, what these job posts that demand a "hit the ground running" candidate fail to realize is that they have to train the new employee in the operations and peculiarities unique to their business anyway.
This, sooooo much this!
HR is the real problem here and they need to be fired.
Using a taser on someone who is unarmed? Is that really necessary? I'm certain there are some instances where it's a legitimate option but I feel like it's far more likely that tasers are considered by police to be non-lethal weapons when in fact they are merely less-lethal weapons. The "don't tase me, bro" incident is a perfect example of this abuse of force.
You need the same rule to install your CO2-removal machines, except they would be much less efficient, so you need a lot more power.
You seem awfully sure about that. https://www.fastcompany.com/40...
“One CO2 collector has the same footprint as a tree,” says Wurzbacher. “It takes 50 tons of CO2 out of the air every year. A corresponding tree would take 50 kilograms of the air every year. It’s a factor of a thousand. So in order to achieve the same, you would need 1,000 times less area than you would require for plants growing.” The CO2 collectors can also be used in areas that wouldn’t be suitable for agriculture, helping preserve land needed for farming, and they don’t require a water source, unlike some afforestation efforts. They can also run on renewable energy.
Hang gliding accident. (He was 92, you boob!)
If wind was cheaper then we should be able to do without wind subsidies. Every time the possibility of removing those subsidies is mentioned though the tree huggers scream. Wind power as it is now cannot survive without subsidies, subsidies from a coal and nuclear powered economy.
Just add a tax based on the amount money needed to clean up the pollution from each energy source. Wind will thrive because energy from fossil fuel would actually cost companies money. When we do that, we can strip all subsidies from the energy sector.
"The better first step would be to add a pollution tax."
We have those, they are called "taxes". Everything we do produces "pollution" (if we include CO2 as pollution) and everything is taxed. Do you mean just raising tax rates?
We do not tax specifically for the volume of pollution something creates. That's what should be taxed. The tax also needs to be high enough to cover the cost of cleaning up the pollution.
At some point we need to recognize the diminishing returns on doing more.
When we reach the point where we're removing more CO2 from the atmosphere than we're putting out, that's when we can "go into maintenance mode".
That is we hit a wall of diminishing returns if we keep this NIMBY attitude on nuclear power.
Currently, nuclear power isn't very cost effective and it's very centralized which makes it a vulnerability. Distributed solar power is a better idea and reduces the amount of infrastructure that needs to be maintained. It won't work everywhere but insisting on perfection prevents improvement. It would be nice if the government would fund research into next gen reactors which don't have an abundance of fissile material and thus are incapable of a meltdown but those don't make weapons, so they will not fund it. It's best we do what we can to improve the situation instead of waiting for silver bullet solutions.
We could go a long way yet with nuclear power. Barring that though we've pretty much hit a wall.
We're not even close to hitting a wall. The wall isn't even in sight.
I was enjoying 2016, the year of the Linux desktop, on my Linux desktop and saw the news and thought, "Wow, after having the first black president, we're going to have the first woman president. Things are only going to go up from here!" I was so innocent back then.
I haven't done the sums, but I suspect growing plants...
Do the sums. Your argument is specious.
If we have plenty of solar and wind energy, then why are we still burning fossil fuels and amplifying the problem in the first place?
Because we aren't taxing polluters to clean up their pollution. Change that and everyone will be switching power sources ASAP.
A better first step would be to turn off the machines that actively add carbon to the air.
That would be ideal but we have to work within government capabilities without authoritarian rule. The better first step would be to add a pollution tax. It would be onerous enough that non-polluting solutions would become the more desirable solutions from a financial standpoint. The taxes should be used to help clean up the pollution and subsidize solutions for the poor (because they cannot afford the initial investment needed).
You mean the machines also known as "trees"?
No.
And power them. That's going to remain a sticking point unless and until we have fusion.
We have plenty of power from the sun and the wind, dummy. Worst case scenario, we power them with nuclear.
But until we have such machines...
Actually, we have already invented the machines we need to capture CO2. We have the machines we need, we just need to build them.
Cool, but then you have to figure out how to power those machines.
Solar and wind. This isn't rocket science.
Are we currently capable of creating a CO2-removing machine that is more power-efficient than a tree?
Trees don't permanently remove CO2 from the atmosphere. If they did then there wouldn't be any CO2 for them. Also, please don't argue that animals are supplying the CO2 they need because animal-life is a recent development compared to plant-life.
What we have done is removed a fuckload of buried carbon and propelled it into the atmosphere. If we wanted to involve trees, it would be planting a huge amount of trees, uprooting them at their prime and then burying them deep underground. The better option is to use machines to capture CO2 and then use chemistry to split it into carbon and oxygen. We can make various things with these but the most space efficient would be to make diamonds and release the oxygen. Considering we've released over a trillion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, space should be a consideration.
You could cover the entire planet surface with trees and it still wouldn't be enough. It's time to start using technology to produce billions of machines that actively and permanently remove carbon from the air.
In addition discovering trigonometry, the tablet shows Babylonia showed up hung over to their trigonometry mid-term exam and barely got a passing grade. Lucky for Babylonia, grading on a curve was millennia away from being invented.
I was writing about violence within a democracy. Dictatorship is a totally different topic.
Shocking, there are fools on the internet! I suppose citing a source would be helpful in such instances.
Politically motivated violence (short of genocide) has been shown to be ineffective and many times counterproductive. However, if you think genocide is the answer then you have lost sight of what you were fighting for. Combating extremism with more extremism is a losing move.
I'm a jew, and I've been called a nazi for saying things like "mao killed more people than hitler".
It's best to add context. Mao killed more people though Hitler killed more Jews. It's not recommend that you reverse that statement lest people get the wrong idea.
This is about large social media platforms and news aggregators rather than the internet or webpages in general. Here's the thing, this problem has already been solved (multiple times) which they admit to in the paper but don't think it's good enough because... not enough people use them and they aren't integrated into the "mega-platforms".
Sure sounds to me like the neo-nazis and their bile spewing kin aren't taking being kicked off twitter/facebook very well.
56K!? Seriously, you had 56K! You lucky SOB! In my day we felt lucky to be able to cradle our handsets into 300 baud modem. The data had to climb uphill, in the snow, both ways.
300 baud modem? When I was your age we had to "transfer data" over a radio using the NATO phonetic alphabet and we liked it! No respect, I say, you kids got no respect!
Fuck you. Taxation is theft.
And if you didn't pay the taxes, anyone would be free to murder you and take your money without cause. Laws are just words with nothing to enforce them.
Until they add GUI, there's no point. And they 99% likely know that already.
Actually, the purported reason they are doing this is to enable servers written in .net to run on Linux machines. As far as I can tell, they are trying to nudge .Net into the business/server world to displace Java.
As far as I'm concerned, Oracle and Microsoft can both choke on their own vomit.