Under optimal conditions, without major climate change. GMO and breeding has been unable to make the major crops resilient against significantly higher temperatures or drought.
Basically all of those methods are pipe dreams. It has been shown many times by multiple scholars that there is *no* way to reach today's flow rate from oil with any kind of alternate liquid fuel. The only method that would be remotely effective to get a significant fraction of today's liquid fuel would be CTL at a huge scale, with the accompanying CO2 emissions. My expectation is that people will try that for a while in 20 or 30 years until it will become obvious that it's not feasible.
You forget that the entire "green revolution" is based on liquid fossil fuels. Today agriculture, especially large scale agriculture, is a process of converting fossil fuel into food. There are no developments that would use renewable or nuclear energy for this.
Exactly. Worldwide energy availability will be some fraction of what it is today. We'll deal with it in some way. How many people can be fed with that amount of energy will be seen. It won't be 9 billion.
Problem is, physics says that there's only a small factor left in current technologies - Tom Murphy went through all of them. If some completely new technology is needed it won't be available before 20 years from now - in the extreme best case, assuming we find something tomorrow and start a Manhattan Project like effort.
The problem is that the answer to the first question is "no" too, and the logical conclusion is that a couple billion people will have to go one way or another - something nobody is willing to touch. Not that we have to - it'll just happen.
It's all about entropy, not energy. We gain usable energy from the differential between high entropy and low entropy. All the energy in the world is useless if it comes in the same form.
The people who do the math come up with numbers around 1.5 to 4 or so billions of humans by the end of the century, simply based on the available resources like energy and raw materials by then. How we get there is left as an exercise to the reader.
There was never a problem with netbooks other than that manufacturers faced very low profits after MS forced them to put Windows on them, which didn't run well on the weak hardware.
With a lean distro an Atom has sufficient power to run all your typical applications like email, browsing, word processing and spreadsheets that aren't humongous. The only problem is with video, which isn't accelerated due to the proprietary PowerVR drivers.
Slashdot Mirror
The political will to spend how much? Out of whose pockets?
Agree.
Under optimal conditions, without major climate change. GMO and breeding has been unable to make the major crops resilient against significantly higher temperatures or drought.
Some of this may be correct - for the richer part of the world only.
Yeah, if you manage to build a few thousand new reactors that might work but I have a feeling that's not realistic.
Basically all of those methods are pipe dreams. It has been shown many times by multiple scholars that there is *no* way to reach today's flow rate from oil with any kind of alternate liquid fuel. The only method that would be remotely effective to get a significant fraction of today's liquid fuel would be CTL at a huge scale, with the accompanying CO2 emissions. My expectation is that people will try that for a while in 20 or 30 years until it will become obvious that it's not feasible.
You forget that the entire "green revolution" is based on liquid fossil fuels. Today agriculture, especially large scale agriculture, is a process of converting fossil fuel into food. There are no developments that would use renewable or nuclear energy for this.
Exactly. Worldwide energy availability will be some fraction of what it is today. We'll deal with it in some way. How many people can be fed with that amount of energy will be seen. It won't be 9 billion.
Where's my shipstone?
Problem is, physics says that there's only a small factor left in current technologies - Tom Murphy went through all of them. If some completely new technology is needed it won't be available before 20 years from now - in the extreme best case, assuming we find something tomorrow and start a Manhattan Project like effort.
The problem is that the answer to the first question is "no" too, and the logical conclusion is that a couple billion people will have to go one way or another - something nobody is willing to touch. Not that we have to - it'll just happen.
It's all about entropy, not energy. We gain usable energy from the differential between high entropy and low entropy. All the energy in the world is useless if it comes in the same form.
But we can't afford the energy (or money, same thing) to build out nuclear. It's called the energy trap and we're in it.
Yup but the economy won't like those oil prices.
I think this graph summarizes it well: http://media.peakprosperity.com/images/A-brief-history-oi-humans.jpg
The people who do the math come up with numbers around 1.5 to 4 or so billions of humans by the end of the century, simply based on the available resources like energy and raw materials by then. How we get there is left as an exercise to the reader.
I guess you haven't tried Debian experimental.
Free range electrons and photons.
I think it says "If you like KDE today, better watch out and don't upgrade until at least 5.2."
How often did we hear "There was no core melt"?
If officials would reliably issue accurate statements there would be much less reason to stress out.
All the ones I heard from (including at my own employer) say "Windows 8: No way until MS provides the old UI or an emulation."
Nobody is going to retrain the entire workforce and face their wrath.
I thought the confusion between the two is a major marketing tool.
There was never a problem with netbooks other than that manufacturers faced very low profits after MS forced them to put Windows on them, which didn't run well on the weak hardware.
With a lean distro an Atom has sufficient power to run all your typical applications like email, browsing, word processing and spreadsheets that aren't humongous. The only problem is with video, which isn't accelerated due to the proprietary PowerVR drivers.
Those systems are still very viable - they're just called Chromebooks today and are more powerful than ever at the $200 price point. See e.g. this one with a Sandy Bridge Celeron: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834215914
You should rather ask who got a big bonus and/or a golden handshake in the meantime.
It should be much more than normal tuition because you can study in the comfort of your home and don't have to get up in the morning!
After all the UC system isn't about education, it's about money.
s/conservative/right wing nut/.
But Fox News says otherwise so you must be wrong!