I'm certainly no expert on the topic, but the things you're describing here sounds like one time costs - ie, the pollution created only occurs once, unlike fossil fuels which continue to produce the pollution.
These are fixable problems. Using fossil fuels not so much.
Excellent informative post and explained very well.
I've tried explaining this to people before but you have expressed it so well I'm cutting and pasting that into my collection of "here's one I prepared earlier" answers!
Have you much insight into T-class (tripath) amps. I've heard that T-amps produce the least distortion of all popular amplifier designs, are cheap to make and cheap to drive. Any wisdom here?
There has always been and will always be unemployment and the figures will move up and down due to all sorts of events (economics, war, disruptive tech, disease, weather, etc).
But labour most certainly gets reallocated/redistributed, history has shown this.
Has any technology ever had any long term unemployment increasing effect throughout human history? I've heard and read about the fears of human unemployment crisis due to X tech, but I'm yet to see any hard evidence of it in the real world.
If machines are doing ALL the jobs, then other than for social/psychological reasons I can't see why unemployment is an issue, we'll have food thanks to "robots".
The US labour force will increase by 6% and provides increased GDP without the extra mouths to feed, infrastructure to support (roads, water, sewage), people to house, etc.
Did the article say wilderness is being lost to habitation?
I'd assume a significant proportion of wilderness loss is for agriculture, mining, clearing (for resources, wood, etc) .
I'm not sure habitation has much to do with it at all. Fill a city with another 2M people and you're going to need to clear wilderness to farm food for said people.
"Reducing use of fossil fuels" != "halting all progress"
You use the phrase "slow this progress" but the remainder of your comment implies almost halting progress.
Limiting use of fossil fuels has (relatively short in terms of human history) economic consequences which will be overcome. If we drastically reduced the use of fossil fuels today I doubt it will take hundreds of years to find a working cleaner alternative, especially when there is economic motive.
So far there has been sufficient supply (note, they DID/DO purchase the power at the stated prices) It's just not generated locally by our own market, so when we fall short on local supply we need to purchase from our non local suppliers who can and do set their spot price.
So the facts to back up my contention is that at no point was there not enough supply to meed demand. It's only the cost of the supply that's the point of contention.
IF they are forced (due to supply constraints and not economic constraints) to start doing rolling blackouts or similar due to inability to meet demand then I'll stand corrected. But having worked directly with our largest whole-sale provider to implement demand management systems at the customer end (experimental) I can be rather confident that the supply is there if they are willing to pay the price.
In past years our local suppliers would do rolling blackouts during high demand periods to avoid paying for costly supply. This typically occurred during summer. This has been offset by using roor-top-solar. But still, it's always been about price, not availability.
Compulsory voting + laissez-faire attitude to politics + ignorance = same government doing same shit over and over.
Our voting system is an absolute joke. No one has any idea who or why they are voting, unless you're a xenophobe then there's the Hanson clan, but they are all just suit wearing knobs and the one who has the most charismatic appearance during the campaign wins.
Exactly - there's plenty of supply, it's just charged at an insane rate since "They have no choice - want power? Pay what we ask or start doing rolling blackouts"
as if a new $650 smartphone is cheap. Good luck doing VR on a smartphone that costs less than $300 (going price for a new unlocked Galaxy S6 on ebay, the minimum-specced phone that will work with a Gear VR). I shudder to think how many people are gonna get nauseous with their $99 phone that barely manages to run Android N.
You're only considering the brands you know about.. That $650 smartphone is only $100 (or less) if you buy something like a DOOGEE or Xiaomi or similar..
Samsung and Apple are doing a number on most westerners - $650 for a phone.. what a joke. Seriously, people who buy their junk at those prices deserve it:)
As someone who lost over 150lbs, you're full of shit.
It is my experience that absolutely nothing makes you feel fuller for longer other than filling your stomach and doing it a lot. It has nothing to do with foods being processed and everything to do with their bulk/calorie ratio.
We'll sorry, but you're argument is equally flawed... For example:
As someone who's just lost 20kg (90 -> 70kg) you're full of shit.
I primarily avoid carbs, I avoid vegetable oil, I heavily use animal fat (dripping, lard, etc) for all my cooking. I feel plenty full after my meals and stay that way until my next meal time (no snacking here, no need)..
Simple anecdote - eat a steak and egg you'll be full for quite some time, eat a big bowl of pasta (greater weight even, higher calories even) and you'll be hungry again within an hour or so (well I am anyway)..
Sure, it's one anecdote, but I've experienced this phenomenon many times throughout my life , so for me it's a 'rule' I accept (I won't say fact, as this is not science here, it's my experience only)..
Slashdot Mirror
What's your point? Because a ship got stuck in some ice are you inferring there is no Arctic ice melting issue?
Eeek, I hope you're not in a decision making position there.
Who said it was?
I'm certainly no expert on the topic, but the things you're describing here sounds like one time costs - ie, the pollution created only occurs once, unlike fossil fuels which continue to produce the pollution.
These are fixable problems. Using fossil fuels not so much.
I've been sprouting plans my whole life - it never fixed a thing!
Slashdotted? hahahaha, you're funny!
Well, you see we've got about 7 billion humans here all sabotaging any effort to fix global warming.
There will only be a few on Mars and they'll all have a vested interest in terraforming their new home.
Earth for human inhabitants is screwed.
Not really.
When storing energy for my *house* I don't give a rats about energy density as long as I can put it somewhere where it's not a total nuisance.
Welcome to the oligarchy that is our world.
Hmm, actually looking at the picture there's no way a cartridge could be there (drive is in the way).
But you can also see that the 1541 drive door is not closed (it's the twist down type).. Is someone pulling some shenanigans on this one?
Perhaps it not used (and may not work).
It's possible it's running from cartridge (remember those!!) and the 1541 is just sitting collecting dust.
Excellent informative post and explained very well.
I've tried explaining this to people before but you have expressed it so well I'm cutting and pasting that into my collection of "here's one I prepared earlier" answers!
Have you much insight into T-class (tripath) amps. I've heard that T-amps produce the least distortion of all popular amplifier designs, are cheap to make and cheap to drive. Any wisdom here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There has always been and will always be unemployment and the figures will move up and down due to all sorts of events (economics, war, disruptive tech, disease, weather, etc).
But labour most certainly gets reallocated/redistributed, history has shown this.
Labour get redistributed.
Has any technology ever had any long term unemployment increasing effect throughout human history? I've heard and read about the fears of human unemployment crisis due to X tech, but I'm yet to see any hard evidence of it in the real world.
If machines are doing ALL the jobs, then other than for social/psychological reasons I can't see why unemployment is an issue, we'll have food thanks to "robots".
The US labour force will increase by 6% and provides increased GDP without the extra mouths to feed, infrastructure to support (roads, water, sewage), people to house, etc.
There's some value in that.
Did the article say wilderness is being lost to habitation?
I'd assume a significant proportion of wilderness loss is for agriculture, mining, clearing (for resources, wood, etc) .
I'm not sure habitation has much to do with it at all. Fill a city with another 2M people and you're going to need to clear wilderness to farm food for said people.
Surely that's a stawman argument.
"Reducing use of fossil fuels" != "halting all progress"
You use the phrase "slow this progress" but the remainder of your comment implies almost halting progress.
Limiting use of fossil fuels has (relatively short in terms of human history) economic consequences which will be overcome. If we drastically reduced the use of fossil fuels today I doubt it will take hundreds of years to find a working cleaner alternative, especially when there is economic motive.
You're going to feel pretty silly rocking up to the spoon race without a spoon now aren't you!
Man get with the times... Zmodem FTW!
Did you all read that? Someone added a mundane feature to an app!
WOW I'm so shocked, this is freak'n awesome!
How is this news?
I'm certainly talking about market spot prices.
So far there has been sufficient supply (note, they DID/DO purchase the power at the stated prices) It's just not generated locally by our own market, so when we fall short on local supply we need to purchase from our non local suppliers who can and do set their spot price.
So the facts to back up my contention is that at no point was there not enough supply to meed demand. It's only the cost of the supply that's the point of contention.
IF they are forced (due to supply constraints and not economic constraints) to start doing rolling blackouts or similar due to inability to meet demand then I'll stand corrected. But having worked directly with our largest whole-sale provider to implement demand management systems at the customer end (experimental) I can be rather confident that the supply is there if they are willing to pay the price.
In past years our local suppliers would do rolling blackouts during high demand periods to avoid paying for costly supply. This typically occurred during summer. This has been offset by using roor-top-solar. But still, it's always been about price, not availability.
Compulsory voting + laissez-faire attitude to politics + ignorance = same government doing same shit over and over.
Our voting system is an absolute joke. No one has any idea who or why they are voting, unless you're a xenophobe then there's the Hanson clan, but they are all just suit wearing knobs and the one who has the most charismatic appearance during the campaign wins.
Exactly - there's plenty of supply, it's just charged at an insane rate since "They have no choice - want power? Pay what we ask or start doing rolling blackouts"
It's a commercial/political/greed issue.
as if a new $650 smartphone is cheap. Good luck doing VR on a smartphone that costs less than $300 (going price for a new unlocked Galaxy S6 on ebay, the minimum-specced phone that will work with a Gear VR). I shudder to think how many people are gonna get nauseous with their $99 phone that barely manages to run Android N.
You're only considering the brands you know about.. That $650 smartphone is only $100 (or less) if you buy something like a DOOGEE or Xiaomi or similar..
Samsung and Apple are doing a number on most westerners - $650 for a phone.. what a joke. Seriously, people who buy their junk at those prices deserve it :)
I typically eat bacon to celebrate.
As someone who lost over 150lbs, you're full of shit.
It is my experience that absolutely nothing makes you feel fuller for longer other than filling your stomach and doing it a lot. It has nothing to do with foods being processed and everything to do with their bulk/calorie ratio.
We'll sorry, but you're argument is equally flawed... For example:
As someone who's just lost 20kg (90 -> 70kg) you're full of shit.
I primarily avoid carbs, I avoid vegetable oil, I heavily use animal fat (dripping, lard, etc) for all my cooking. I feel plenty full after my meals and stay that way until my next meal time (no snacking here, no need)..
Simple anecdote - eat a steak and egg you'll be full for quite some time, eat a big bowl of pasta (greater weight even, higher calories even) and you'll be hungry again within an hour or so (well I am anyway)..
Sure, it's one anecdote, but I've experienced this phenomenon many times throughout my life , so for me it's a 'rule' I accept (I won't say fact, as this is not science here, it's my experience only)..