I agree with the parent. The solutions to curbing emissions has been cap and trade, a program meant to remove more $ from citizen's pockets by increasing the amount of money they pay for energy. California has just implemented cap and trade. Electric bills are going up. Do you think that utilities eat that cost? And of course, the middle men, think Al Gore's company, takes a little bite of every cap and trade transaction. These entities have produce a "product" literally out of thin air. The cap and trade industry produces nothing. It merely has created an industry that shears the sheep by whipping them up and telling them the planet is but a few years away from catastrophe. Sadly, people are stupid and gullible. The surprising thing is, you see them here, supposedly educated logical people and it is allways the same, "But we must do something, anything!"

Given today's technology, if carbon was a real threat, don't you think money would be expended on the problems that are the problems? Case in point. I drive from stop light to stop light on my way to work. This morning, one of the lights turned red on the main road, even though there were no cars waiting on the side road. Every time the cars accelerate from the stop, they emit more carbon than a car that is maintaining a constant speed. A few of the communities, in the interest of safety, implemented, do the speed limit, hit all of the lights green strategy. When traffic ticket revenue plumented, those communities reversed course and implemented a different strategy. Most of the streets now reward a car doing 10 over with a string of green lights. So speeding is rewarded but now there is a source of revenue from the speeders. But if carbon was a real, and impending threat, don't you think we would use a network of Beagleboard Blacks to manage and measure traffic to ensure cars spend the least amount of time idling? But carbon really isn't an issue. It represents .3% of the atmosphere. Yes, point three percent. Of course, if we are to avert the next ice age, we really need to get carbon up to 4% to produce enough of a blanket to keep the glaciers at bay. I drive through a valley here in San Diego California and see the boulder left here from an ice age. I'd hate to see that amount of ice again.

As far as percentage of carbon emmisions, residential accounts for 10% of those emmisions. Expect those same residents to pay for 100% of the cost.

Or maybe the alarmists don't have the brain capacity to see the bigger picture on geological time scales.

The water level used to be MUCH lower. So much so that a land bridge connected Asia and America. It's where the Eskimos and Indians came through. And then, without any help from mankind, the water rose and flooded the land bridge.

Glacier bay used to be green in the 1700s. The indians lived there. And then the glacier came and filled the bay to where the wall of ice was 2 miles from the entrance. Without any help from mankind, over the next 200 years it receded. By the mid 1800's, it had retreated 44 miles and by the early 1900's it had retreated 65 miles.

The earth undergoes a constant state of change.

Climate change and all of the knee jerk reactions to save our planet are merely a scam to extract more money from the world serfs. Cap and Trade. California passed it. Electric rates are going up. The net effect for California's CaT is to take more from the middle and lower class.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

is a nice rebuttal to the whole climate warming...eh no...climate change...eh no....climate chaos and we must do something....anything in the next 500 days or it will be too late group..

People are stupid sheep.

Why are all the alarmist Anonomous Cowards? Barsteward put his name on it? It'r really hard to take the sheep seriously when they post anonymously.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

A rebuttal for the Obama's FUD piece.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

What's up with all the climate alarmism on Slashdot. Next, we'll have horoscopes and astrological papers.

If you can't stand C++, you probably don't have the experience to objectively comment on the language. I have ported several projects from VB, C# and Java to C++, when the client was not able to get the required performance from the product. Both of the VB projects were Pocket PC projects, one for Sprint and NASCAR and one for remote order taking. The problem in both of these cases were the start-up times were three and two minutes respectively. In addition, the products were static in nature, i.e. the number of functions were fixed. The client originally signed on to this language because development was going to be 1/10th the time so they would get to market quicker. Both projects were bid in terms of a few months. The language experts did deliver the products on time but were not able to get past the performance problems. I get brought in. I don't have to do the design, as the VB projects function as the desired product. I use ATL (active template library) along with the HP variant of STL. I also deliver the product in several months, but my start up times are measured in one to two seconds. In addition, using an optimized version of an XML parser I wrote, the menu processing went from a minute to a few seconds. The functionality of the products were not static in that I could dynamically allocate more features as needed.

On the server side of the NASCAR project, the JMS on a Tomcat server was able to handle 2000 concurrent connections. A C++ implementation was able to handle 40,000 concurrent connections. That increase means less hardware, less power. It seems that the Java server side mantra is throw more hardware at the problem.

Several C# projects also suffered from performance problems. The customers bought into the platform again because of the short development time. By utilizing Qt and C++, we were able to develop a highly polished product in the equivalent time as the C# product. We however were able to respond to 10 millisecond performance windows that are an absolute requirement of the project.

One thing that disappoints me is the quality of software engineers we encounter when we do college recruiting. It seems that the "hardest" language learned is Java. Assembly is an optional course and C++ is taught as a part of comparative languages. As a consequence, we see a number of people who consider themselves software engineers but don't have a good theoretical back ground in what the hardware is doing underneath. Then when these same engineers encounter a performance bottleneck, they don't have the tools to solve those bottle necks.

To get back on topic, I like STL and the evolutions of C++. It talked to Stroustrup about STL and told him that it was a good addition that I didn't initially grok. He said he had the same experience as well. Twocows, keep at it. You just might find a diamond in your turd.

The article claims 4 million gallons per ton to produce beef. Using a little imagery, I am picturing two steers (more than a ton of beef) swimming in a water tank of that size. Lincoln Nebraska's tank hold 4 million gallons. So what are these animals, aqua cows? They live in a Shamu sized aquarium? Maybe I'm just lucky because my cattle only each drink about 60 gallons a week. But you might say I didn't factor in the alfalfa. They don't really eat that much, two bales at most per week, each. So, two hundred pounds of feed per week, or about five tons per year. My uncle uses 1,000,000 gallons to water on his field of alfalfa, 15 acres, per year. Each acre produces about 6 tons per year so that million gallons goes to producing 90 tons of feed. That is enough to support 18 animals. 4 million gallons should support 72 animals or 36 ( a very modest figure) tons. That changes the assertion to 12,000 gallons per ton.

The truth is, alfalfa is used for milk production, not meat production. If you want to fatten up a cow, you feed them grains. You know, the carbohydrates that America uses as a primary source of their diet; which is why America is obese. The article talks about the cost of alfalfa driving up up the cost of beef. It is true that the Imperial Valley alfalfa farmers can ship their alfalfa to China on the empty cargo ships returning to China and make more money than they can shipping up to San Joaquin Valley where the dairies exist. The impact has been on milk prices and horse ranches. Alfalfa went from $9 for a 140 lb bale to $17 for a 100 lb bale. That upswing did nothing to meat prices. During this upswing, beef was incredibly cheap. I stuffed my freezer with $4 a pound rib eyes. There are other market forces that are now bringing beef prices up. The American herd is at a 60 year low. More people, less beef, more money.

I do believe the water figures given for vegetables to be fairly consistent. Most of that water doesn't go into producing the product, but instead evaporates off leaving the salts behind that ultimately destroys the land for farming. We have switched to hot house hydroponics. It uses a little as 1/20th the water as conventional farming. The reduction in pesticides is drastically reduced. The fish and crustaceans provide the nutrients that the plants need, and the plants and bacteria break down the fish wastes purifying the water. A hot house produces a tremendous amount of food.

If feels to me that the author as ideological agenda. The truth is, we are designed to eat meats, eggs and vegetables. Everything else, not so much. The American diet has caused an epidemic in obesity, diabetes and Alzheimer's. This is directly a result of what we eat today. You can read, "Grain Brain" for a neurosurgeons take on this subject.

Step 1: Receive Plate
Step 2: Microwave Plate
Step 3: Place non functional plate on car.
Step 4: Profit

That is exactly why costs are going up. A bank knows when they make the student loan, that it can't be dispensed in bankruptcy. It is a form of modern day slavery. Make those loans subject to bankruptcy and the prices will eventually drop. If not, when you get out of school, many places are happy to give you credit cards. Take them and use those little checks to pay down or pay off the student loans. Those do go away in bankruptcy.

Your ignorance is showing. C# rocks for doing the things that .Net is suited for. Quick enterprise applications where size of executable and ASP .Net, again on the enterprise network where bandwidth isn't a problem. Other than code metadata, I fail to see the congruence between .Net and Qt? Qt and Webkit are tightly integrated. You can accomplish in short order, applications that have the characteristics of a web application but also contains high performing cross platform native components. Hint, I've made use of this feature on a commercial project that you have probably used. Android and IOS are the present. Networked embedded devices are the future. IOS not likely to be the platform of choice due to licensing fees. Android is unlikely to be the choice either. Android runs on a stripped down version on Linux. So an embedded device developer will probably skip the Android middle man and go directly to Linux. No UI, no need for Android. UI? Then Qt's Designer is a WHOLE lot better and faster at designing UIs than Androids widget set. I think you are stuck in the present. So let us call a Troll a Troll.

Where's the like button? You of course expressed that which I meant to.

In what way is it MASSIVELY flawed? Drama major? It works on OSX as well. The announced framework edition is adding Android and IOS support. I have found problems in the framework. Guess what. I have have the source code, modify it and then rebuild it. That is a whole lot better than starting from scratch. Another poster here talks about getting threading right. QT does a pretty good job with threading. QObjects are thread affinity aware and will let you know if you are executing an object in a thread in which it was not created. Very often, I find the limitations of the framework are imposed by the underlying OS. Calling me green just means you live up to your user name.

I've been a QT developer for a number of years. Over the last few years, I've done some Linux embedded. A few months ago, I even built and ran a QT app on the Raspberry Pi. Everything worked except for animation. Nokia messed up by not staying the course. And now they announced they are happy being the challenger. Seriously? You were the world dominater several years ago. One thing not mentioned is the Blackberry port. The framework is well done and it just works.