I have a CC3200 and it works pretty well. I'm using it with the Energia IDE and for the most part it's not too bad. I agree that they should do more to embrace the community, but at the moment I don't find developing for these boards that much more onerous than Arduino.

Are you upset? You seem upset.

The area of South Korea is 100,210 km squared.
The area of New York is 141,300 km squared.

The population of South Korea is 51,302,044.
The population of New York is 19,651,127.

So forget comparisons between America and South Korea. Even the state of New York is spread over a large part of the globe, and with half as many people as South Korea. Why is South Korean internet less expensive? Because per mile of fiber, and per cell tower, and every other piece of infrastructure South Korea has more customers to divide the costs over. And that's just compared to New York. Montana and Texas are just right out there on cost per person.

Citation needed, by all appearances EDF was still turning a profit in 2013. It looks like some of their foreign holdings outside of Europe are problematic for them, but that just goes to show their core business of selling nuclear power to Europeans is profitable enough to offset losses from other investments. Hardly a condemnation of the economics of nuclear power.

As for 'free market solutions' I hadn't realized that when we discussed emissions reductions that a solution must be rejected because it is or is not capitalist enough in nature.

Working in climate science I can tell you that tape for us isn't going anywhere. Our investment gets larger in it every year, at least monetarily and capacity wise. Several of our groups have growth curves that scale linearly with the output of the supercomputers, meaning our growth is almost exponential. Most of this data is static and doesn't really change once it's been produced, but it does need to be read from time to time. There's no other solution out there that takes little to no power to store, no cooling, and can keep the data for years with minimal loss of integrity. We have data that goes back to the 1940's that we have to keep almost forever, this historical data is hugely important in how we create the models and cannot be lost. So we have to have somewhere to store all that data for the long haul, LTO is the medium of choice because it's vendor agnostic, fast enough, cheap, and large enough to handle what we need it to handle.

The people of France and Europe are paying less for electricity generated with nuclear power. How else do I have to phrase that before you'll stop insisting it is impossible? It doesn't matter what kind market situations and various problems you can concoct about how challenging or impossible a task it is to accomplish. It has none the less been accomplished and won't cease to exist for all your insistences against it.

You bring to mind a quote.
Never let those who say a thing can't be done get in the way of those that are doing it.
France produces more than 50% of it's electricity through nuclear and has some of the lowest electricity prices in Europe. It even exports large volumes of electricity to it's neighbours.

You bring to mind a quote.
Never let those who say a thing can't be done get in the way of those that are doing it.
France produces more than 50% of it's electricity through nuclear and has some of the lowest electricity prices in Europe. It even exports large volumes of electricity to it's neighbours.

Not only are multi-year trends important, also energy imbalance is more important then temperature. The entire greenhouse effect is about the global energy imbalance and temperature is just a proxy measure of that.
We've been measuring that energy imbalance by satellite for a few decades now and seen a net of more in than out, as expected.
Here is a big trick though, that imbalance should also be growing as we dump more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. Or more importantly, the degree to which our activity affects the trend of that Imbalance is important to our long term impact. The IPCC notes from the satellite record, with very high confidence, that since 2001 there has been no trend to the global energy imbalance. If you also look at projected and actual temperatures in the latest IPCC report, measured temp is tracking the very low end of projections, which show pretty manageable temperature changes for the next hundred years.
So there is a scientific consensus under all this. The planet is warming. We are contributing. No need to panic yet though as the severity of our impact is still under investigation and there are many reasons to believe that adaptation may be worlds more efficient than large scale forced and rapid emissions reductions.

It says right in the summary. Docker is one of them. Here's a few others: Doozer(Heroku) DropBox backend services CloudFlare SoundCloud BBC uses it pretty extensively etc....etc

I actually really like the redesign. One reason I didn't buy the previous Model A was that I already had a Model B in the same form factor. This one is nicely squared, will fit in a project box nicely, and is definitely fast enough for some of the project I have in my head. Plug a cheap wifi dongle in and you've got a great IoT platform to play with. It's on par for price with the CC3200 from TI, and while it doesn't have PWM it'll still do quite a lot and is significantly faster than the CC3200.

We have a lot of Centrify in our organization. It's a real pain in the ass to manage.

You first. If you'd tried taking your own advice you'd have found we don't have nearly a century of data for TSI, we've got only about 30 years of direct measurements.

And if you really want to look at what matters, it should be net energy in and out globally instead of temperature. The IPCC's latest report summarizes the results of our satellite measurement of exactly that, observing it is unlikely any trend exists since 2000 in global top of the atmosphere radiation flux. They don't explain the justification though between this and the later claim that total radiative forcing has steadily increased over that time. The difference is methodology, in that the calculation for total radiative forcing appears to be a summation of measurements of various gas concentrations over that time. Nobody seems to be bothered, worried or interested though in the fact that the directly measured real net forcing doesn't match expectations...

But nevermind the complexity and nuance, as Ban Ki-Moon has said, "Science has spoken!". You don't ask questions when a deity has spoken directly to you and given you direction...

I wish there were more people like you. My problem is that on paper I don't look perfect, but at my last job I created the entire monitoring and configuration management system from the ground up. I mean literally, I wrote it from scratch(DoD, restrictions on open source, no money to buy anything). I bought a book and started writing, I didn't stop until I'd written a complete product. One that could do everything we wanted from verify configs to monitor the entire system for problems, it was even cross platform with Windows, IRIX, Solaris, and Linux support. I go into interviews and people immediately judge me based on my youth and the fact that I'd only been programming for 3 years without a degree. So they offer me peanuts compared to what I was making. I finally found a job at a national laboratory, but I'm a senior sysadmin instead of programmer which is what I wanted to do.

Before implementing a global carbon tax maybe the IPCC predictions should be looked at more closely, no?

The IPCC first assessment report(still available on their site) had temperature projections that we can compare today to see how they match reality nearly 25 years later. Take a look for yourself, and they clearly predict a warming of 0.5C from 1990 temperatures by 2014 IF CO2 emissions remained frozen at 1990 levels. So, sort of their best case scenario. In reality, CO2 emissions have steadily climbed much, much higher than 1990 levels. Today's temperatures though sit at a warming of 0.4C higher than 1990 levels.

The IPCC more recent third assessment from 2001 has much improved projections, and we can again compare them to reality 15 years out. The 2001 assessment has error bars included and a decade more research and refining behind it. If you compare it as well, you see today's temperatures DO fit within the error bars projected 15 years ago by the IPCC, albeit barely. Of course, they are way, way down on the lowest end of the error bars.

What the above tells me is that reality has shown the IPCC has consistently been overestimating the amount of warming to be expected. In other words, the science says don't panic just yet.

Switching to electric cars and nuclear power are a good idea regardless of CO2 emissions, so we should push forwards with them. If for no other reason than they are simply better and cheaper if we invest in them properly. A massive reduction in CO2 emissions that comes with it is entirely secondary as a side benefit. Really, less coal smoke and exhaust fumes are probably the bigger win. Particularly in places like China were even seeing the sun is become rare indeed.