Right, handwaving away a whole category of technology because you only saw early designs that were overpriced.
That's just silly, as is claiming that saltware boat docks have to be built to an equivalent of "aerospace standards." This is no different than other equipment that is operated in the ocean. You're simply ignorant of the wide range of different types of devices that can convert wave energy into electricity. It goes up, down, up, down, this isn't hard. A person who thinks that is inherently expensive is an idiot. It is expensive because anything industrial done on a small scale is expensive. There is nothing complicated about this, it doesn't require expensive materials, and it runs in a mostly automated manner. There is nothing there to make it expensive. Waving yours hands won't work, even if you wear expensive gloves while you do it.
No, it isn't "just" that, that's a strong claim you'd never be able to prove. The most obvious counter-argument would be that in that case you're only seeing the difference in scale based on the number of followers, you're not actually uncovering anything fundamental about their structure. And if you read the bible, Jesus never said anything about worshiping him, he didn't create any structure that put the emphasis on himself, even while he was claiming to fulfill a prophesy that can only be fulfilled by the son of God. Just look at the bible passages that modern Christians use to try to boost up Jesus; just read those passages for yourself, in context. It isn't at all what Jesus was teaching.
Mohamed is even further from a cult figure. The Koran mentions Jesus' name over 20 times, because he's divine, the Son of God, who freed humans from Original Sin. That's what the Koran teaches. But the stupid humans still didn't understand very much, so God had to send a final prophet to give a post-forgiveness rulebook. There is nothing at all cult-like about that, it shows a religion with a very well-established system of belief where the Prophet gets his specialness entirely from his role; he isn't a gatekeeper, he's just the one that was selected for a special task. The deity remains the gatekeeper. The reason images of him are banned is because people are not actually allowed to venerate him, they're supposed to only venerate God directly, and if a follower puts a picture of Mohamed on the wall he'll surely start to venerate it. It is supposed to help the pious avoid idol worship. It doesn't matter if they stray from it after it is big and has accumulated a bunch of extra teachings, those prove it to be a normal religion.
With a cult it is the living leader, as leader, putting himself in an anointed role and teaching those below him to treat him like a personification of God. If some other person does that after they die, it is a totally different thing.
You can tell a Christian Cult from Christians with radical beliefs because the cult will tell you to stop talking to God yourself, and let them do it for you. Non-cultists will try to feed you false interpretations and convince you they're correct, they only manipulate they don't gate-keep.
It wasn't about oil. We won, we didn't get the oil. We stayed, we still didn't get the oil. We overstayed until it started a new war to drive us out, and we still didn't get the oil.
It clearly had reasons, but hindsight says oil wasn't very high on the list.
anyhow, if it's going to go so low in just two years what kind of an idiot would buy solar _now_ ?
Because enough people say that the price will stay fairly high even when demand gets low, because once they lose automobiles they no longer benefit from volume when prices are low. They'll be just stuck with the % of fools who have recent investments in the old technology. So prices will go up, demand will shrink but firm up, and then it will be almost totally local suppliers.
Prices only drop as long as oversupply continues. At some point supply will start to drop and counter weakening demand.
Something like a war in the middle east could spike prices and push people into electric cars, and prices would drop even with just local supply. But they wouldn't drop any further than they absolutely had to. And prices in Europe would remain high. The only thing protecting American consumers from super-high prices in that scenario is the regulatory difficulty of new exports.
If you follow your logic, you can justify cannibalism.
Of course you can justify cannibalism!
That's a no-brainer. It is a well-established moral dilemma that has been thrashed over again and again, and there are indeed situations where it is the only right thing to do!
For example, "everybody" knows about the movie Alive.
Formally, the difference between a religion and a cult is merely a matter of the organizational theory embodied in the teachings; if you spread the Specialness of being the Messenger for the deity or deities across a class of people, then it is a religion, and if you concentrate it in an individual, then it is a cult.
Go ahead, ask a rock a question. Now, listen for the answer in geologic time. Oh, you died before you found out what the first syllable was, shucks! I win.
We can't even define life in a way that matches our conclusions; is fire alive? That's how bad we are at it. Any definition of something so much more difficult, like "sentience," is going to be a crap definition from an objective perspective. The attempts I see people make would usually leave out most of the humans I meet, and yet might include some of the machines I meet.
Humans don't have any organ that gives them direct knowledge of their own motivations, and yet they constantly believe they're in full control and are doing everything rationally. They don't know what rational means, but they know it describes them! Why it describes them, they have no idea, no theory. "Me Huuman. Me Special."
The clinical term for your behavior is "dillweed." Of course it is adaptive to protect your own species in actual situations you face in life. Like, if you come across a bear attacking some humans, and you're a human, you'll help to "save" the humans from the bear, instead of helping the bear have success in provisioning lunch.
But at the same time, a rational person should be able to see that isn't because humans are different or more important than other creatures, but merely because I am a human. And to follow from that, a bear happening on the same scene would be right to ask to share in lunch.
There is absolutely no rational reason to get all mystical about humans being better or somehow Special just to explain this. The basic math of "I exist" should explain it all. It is no more difficult than counting to 1.
You're not even sharp enough to notice we aren't a group.
It is like if somebody says, "I like rainbows," and you start asking to subscribe to the newsletter. We can tell you're trying to be an asshole, but there is nothing beyond that, not even a childish insult, just the raw intent to be an ass.
This has always been an option, and the industry chose Door #1 years ago because it is by far the most productive and economical.
Three competing companies are on the same street; one chose door #1, the others chose door #2. One of the ones who chose door #2 has higher productivity and TCO than #1, because the engineering consultant they hired delivered what they promised. The other third company is about to be shut down and liquidated because their consultant never delivered, and after throwing good money after bad, they eventually opened door #1 but because of their debts they didn't have the cash flow to buy large enough quantities of supplies to compete with either of the other two.
In the end, the top companies with the best productivity and the highest profit margin chose door #2. As did many who failed. And most of the production is done by companies who played it safe and went with #1. But even bigger are foreign companies who didn't do any of that, they have a whole different system of doors in their country.
Door 5 is cheaper, is clearly used for a similar purpose by companies larger than yours, but the manual in only in Chinese and the marketing documents in "English" don't make any sense.
As a software consultant I can inform you, you understood door 1 just fine. But you didn't really understand door 2 very well. It does actually scale, you just fell off your knowledge cliff. When you used the word "specified," that includes scaling.
No, you're just a young kid so why are you trying to tell us about the past? Some of us were there.
The promise was, "don't worry, it is safe to use credit cards online because you have fraud protection! It is as safe as mail order, don't be afraid!"
People don't heap shit on paypal because of way their technology is designed, the tech is good. People hate them because they're evil assholes and they freeze people's accounts and then steal their money. The part where they protect your transaction from the outside they're good at. So if you're only making payments, they're good at that. It is if you're using them to receive payments that they are awful.
If the claimed problem is that many things have been left out of the calculation, the response would be first to look into what those things are, rather than jumping straight to demanding a corrected final result.
I suspect you're not asking in good faith, due to the absurdity of the way you phrase the question.
But if you were just being lazy, then I'll spoon feed you the search term: "fossil fuel externalities." That will return your years and years worth of reading materials on the subject, and you can very quickly find out if the orders of magnitude of the external costs justify conclusions about the relative costs even without having precise "objective" numbers.
Also, please note that that isn't really what "objective" means. Perhaps you meant something different, like "unbiased." Using the philosophy definitions of the terms, figuring out the costs after including externalities is clearly subjective. Using common English definitions, neither is relevant until you're making an actual accusation of bias.
Paypal's range of services include CC processing that would be as dangerous as this, so maybe that is what you're thinking of.
I used to do web programming, including CC processing and paypal integration. That's why, if it is some small website without lots of public trust, I use paypal not CC. Because I understand the technical details.
I don't trust paypal nearly as much as I trust my bank, or as much as I trust my CC company. However, I trust random websites even less. Paypal successfully shields me from even needing to worry about the website's security, as long as I'm paying on the paypal website. There is nothing for the website to steal from me, they don't receive any information that can be used to authorize payments!
If all you can do is wave your hands and point out that the universe is imperfect, in response to a security situation, you might as well just leave your money in your wallet and set it on your front porch all night. Might be OK for long periods of time if you're on a quiet enough street. Might not, too. But after all, even things in a safe can be stolen, so same, right?
If your datacenter has high load, you didn't even meet your peak needs. Data centers must have significant overcapacity. For most this will be absorbed in the margins, and the operating cost increase will be very low, consisting mostly of electricity. Future provisioning formulas will be slightly altered.
You're just flailing and guessing.
My numbers are trending down because the arrow of time is moving forwards and the quality of impact estimates are going up.
Another mistake you made was in assuming that if they're deciding based on TCO that they they change suppliers as soon as the competitors numbers dip across the line, but it doesn't work that way at all. They make a TCO decision, and then they change it if the result has changed substantially, not based on if it moves a hair over. Change has cost, too, and so once that decision is made, there is a tendency to stick with it until the market has substantially changed. Even just information like, "has the market changed substantially?" has a cost. You don't want a high level of thrash in your supply chain. And we won't know what the future efficiency and TCO numbers will be; we have to wait for Intel to release information about what silicon changes they will make. They don't even know that yet, we certainly can't measure it yet, and purchasing managers and technology officers are going to be in total agreement that the current situation is "wait and see."
Slashdot Mirror
Right, handwaving away a whole category of technology because you only saw early designs that were overpriced.
That's just silly, as is claiming that saltware boat docks have to be built to an equivalent of "aerospace standards." This is no different than other equipment that is operated in the ocean. You're simply ignorant of the wide range of different types of devices that can convert wave energy into electricity. It goes up, down, up, down, this isn't hard. A person who thinks that is inherently expensive is an idiot. It is expensive because anything industrial done on a small scale is expensive. There is nothing complicated about this, it doesn't require expensive materials, and it runs in a mostly automated manner. There is nothing there to make it expensive. Waving yours hands won't work, even if you wear expensive gloves while you do it.
That was all true 40 years ago, too.
The military has their own satellites, they neither have to wait a long time, nor hand over briefcases full of cash.
No, it isn't "just" that, that's a strong claim you'd never be able to prove. The most obvious counter-argument would be that in that case you're only seeing the difference in scale based on the number of followers, you're not actually uncovering anything fundamental about their structure. And if you read the bible, Jesus never said anything about worshiping him, he didn't create any structure that put the emphasis on himself, even while he was claiming to fulfill a prophesy that can only be fulfilled by the son of God. Just look at the bible passages that modern Christians use to try to boost up Jesus; just read those passages for yourself, in context. It isn't at all what Jesus was teaching.
Mohamed is even further from a cult figure. The Koran mentions Jesus' name over 20 times, because he's divine, the Son of God, who freed humans from Original Sin. That's what the Koran teaches. But the stupid humans still didn't understand very much, so God had to send a final prophet to give a post-forgiveness rulebook. There is nothing at all cult-like about that, it shows a religion with a very well-established system of belief where the Prophet gets his specialness entirely from his role; he isn't a gatekeeper, he's just the one that was selected for a special task. The deity remains the gatekeeper. The reason images of him are banned is because people are not actually allowed to venerate him, they're supposed to only venerate God directly, and if a follower puts a picture of Mohamed on the wall he'll surely start to venerate it. It is supposed to help the pious avoid idol worship. It doesn't matter if they stray from it after it is big and has accumulated a bunch of extra teachings, those prove it to be a normal religion.
With a cult it is the living leader, as leader, putting himself in an anointed role and teaching those below him to treat him like a personification of God. If some other person does that after they die, it is a totally different thing.
You can tell a Christian Cult from Christians with radical beliefs because the cult will tell you to stop talking to God yourself, and let them do it for you. Non-cultists will try to feed you false interpretations and convince you they're correct, they only manipulate they don't gate-keep.
See, even if you find the guy who didn't see it, he knows the story.
How would you prove it isn't renewable? Where does it go after it dies? Where do new stars come from? Is there any connection?
It wasn't about oil. We won, we didn't get the oil. We stayed, we still didn't get the oil. We overstayed until it started a new war to drive us out, and we still didn't get the oil.
It clearly had reasons, but hindsight says oil wasn't very high on the list.
anyhow, if it's going to go so low in just two years what kind of an idiot would buy solar _now_ ?
Because enough people say that the price will stay fairly high even when demand gets low, because once they lose automobiles they no longer benefit from volume when prices are low. They'll be just stuck with the % of fools who have recent investments in the old technology. So prices will go up, demand will shrink but firm up, and then it will be almost totally local suppliers.
Prices only drop as long as oversupply continues. At some point supply will start to drop and counter weakening demand.
Something like a war in the middle east could spike prices and push people into electric cars, and prices would drop even with just local supply. But they wouldn't drop any further than they absolutely had to. And prices in Europe would remain high. The only thing protecting American consumers from super-high prices in that scenario is the regulatory difficulty of new exports.
That would explain the popularity of solar and wind, and also the investment in wave generation.
"Hydro" is not the future, unless you're thinking of the ocean. Certainly freshwater hydro is past its peak in the US, and most places.
Canada might still see future growth in some regions.
If you follow your logic, you can justify cannibalism.
Of course you can justify cannibalism!
That's a no-brainer. It is a well-established moral dilemma that has been thrashed over again and again, and there are indeed situations where it is the only right thing to do!
For example, "everybody" knows about the movie Alive.
Formally, the difference between a religion and a cult is merely a matter of the organizational theory embodied in the teachings; if you spread the Specialness of being the Messenger for the deity or deities across a class of people, then it is a religion, and if you concentrate it in an individual, then it is a cult.
I can just define a rock as sentient.
Go ahead, ask a rock a question. Now, listen for the answer in geologic time. Oh, you died before you found out what the first syllable was, shucks! I win.
We can't even define life in a way that matches our conclusions; is fire alive? That's how bad we are at it. Any definition of something so much more difficult, like "sentience," is going to be a crap definition from an objective perspective. The attempts I see people make would usually leave out most of the humans I meet, and yet might include some of the machines I meet.
Humans don't have any organ that gives them direct knowledge of their own motivations, and yet they constantly believe they're in full control and are doing everything rationally. They don't know what rational means, but they know it describes them! Why it describes them, they have no idea, no theory. "Me Huuman. Me Special."
The clinical term for your behavior is "dillweed." Of course it is adaptive to protect your own species in actual situations you face in life. Like, if you come across a bear attacking some humans, and you're a human, you'll help to "save" the humans from the bear, instead of helping the bear have success in provisioning lunch.
But at the same time, a rational person should be able to see that isn't because humans are different or more important than other creatures, but merely because I am a human. And to follow from that, a bear happening on the same scene would be right to ask to share in lunch.
There is absolutely no rational reason to get all mystical about humans being better or somehow Special just to explain this. The basic math of "I exist" should explain it all. It is no more difficult than counting to 1.
What's an aoerationala? And does it mean something different if you get the tones wrong?
So basically its all fronted by people who cant wear trousers properly.
My parents and grandparents had to listen to the same complaints when they were young! lol
You're not even sharp enough to notice we aren't a group.
It is like if somebody says, "I like rainbows," and you start asking to subscribe to the newsletter. We can tell you're trying to be an asshole, but there is nothing beyond that, not even a childish insult, just the raw intent to be an ass.
This has always been an option, and the industry chose Door #1 years ago because it is by far the most productive and economical.
Three competing companies are on the same street; one chose door #1, the others chose door #2. One of the ones who chose door #2 has higher productivity and TCO than #1, because the engineering consultant they hired delivered what they promised. The other third company is about to be shut down and liquidated because their consultant never delivered, and after throwing good money after bad, they eventually opened door #1 but because of their debts they didn't have the cash flow to buy large enough quantities of supplies to compete with either of the other two.
In the end, the top companies with the best productivity and the highest profit margin chose door #2. As did many who failed. And most of the production is done by companies who played it safe and went with #1. But even bigger are foreign companies who didn't do any of that, they have a whole different system of doors in their country.
Door 5 is cheaper, is clearly used for a similar purpose by companies larger than yours, but the manual in only in Chinese and the marketing documents in "English" don't make any sense.
As a software consultant I can inform you, you understood door 1 just fine. But you didn't really understand door 2 very well. It does actually scale, you just fell off your knowledge cliff. When you used the word "specified," that includes scaling.
No, you're just a young kid so why are you trying to tell us about the past? Some of us were there.
The promise was, "don't worry, it is safe to use credit cards online because you have fraud protection! It is as safe as mail order, don't be afraid!"
People don't heap shit on paypal because of way their technology is designed, the tech is good. People hate them because they're evil assholes and they freeze people's accounts and then steal their money. The part where they protect your transaction from the outside they're good at. So if you're only making payments, they're good at that. It is if you're using them to receive payments that they are awful.
They are still counties. Using a silly name doesn't stop other words from still existing. Also, counties are older than 300 years.
You actually thought you guys invented counties! LOLOL
If the claimed problem is that many things have been left out of the calculation, the response would be first to look into what those things are, rather than jumping straight to demanding a corrected final result.
I suspect you're not asking in good faith, due to the absurdity of the way you phrase the question.
But if you were just being lazy, then I'll spoon feed you the search term: "fossil fuel externalities." That will return your years and years worth of reading materials on the subject, and you can very quickly find out if the orders of magnitude of the external costs justify conclusions about the relative costs even without having precise "objective" numbers.
Also, please note that that isn't really what "objective" means. Perhaps you meant something different, like "unbiased." Using the philosophy definitions of the terms, figuring out the costs after including externalities is clearly subjective. Using common English definitions, neither is relevant until you're making an actual accusation of bias.
Paypal's range of services include CC processing that would be as dangerous as this, so maybe that is what you're thinking of.
I used to do web programming, including CC processing and paypal integration. That's why, if it is some small website without lots of public trust, I use paypal not CC. Because I understand the technical details.
I don't trust paypal nearly as much as I trust my bank, or as much as I trust my CC company. However, I trust random websites even less. Paypal successfully shields me from even needing to worry about the website's security, as long as I'm paying on the paypal website. There is nothing for the website to steal from me, they don't receive any information that can be used to authorize payments!
If all you can do is wave your hands and point out that the universe is imperfect, in response to a security situation, you might as well just leave your money in your wallet and set it on your front porch all night. Might be OK for long periods of time if you're on a quiet enough street. Might not, too. But after all, even things in a safe can be stolen, so same, right?
You just left out most of the costs of fossil fuels!
If your datacenter has high load, you didn't even meet your peak needs. Data centers must have significant overcapacity. For most this will be absorbed in the margins, and the operating cost increase will be very low, consisting mostly of electricity. Future provisioning formulas will be slightly altered.
You're just flailing and guessing.
My numbers are trending down because the arrow of time is moving forwards and the quality of impact estimates are going up.
Another mistake you made was in assuming that if they're deciding based on TCO that they they change suppliers as soon as the competitors numbers dip across the line, but it doesn't work that way at all. They make a TCO decision, and then they change it if the result has changed substantially, not based on if it moves a hair over. Change has cost, too, and so once that decision is made, there is a tendency to stick with it until the market has substantially changed. Even just information like, "has the market changed substantially?" has a cost. You don't want a high level of thrash in your supply chain. And we won't know what the future efficiency and TCO numbers will be; we have to wait for Intel to release information about what silicon changes they will make. They don't even know that yet, we certainly can't measure it yet, and purchasing managers and technology officers are going to be in total agreement that the current situation is "wait and see."