I suspect that, sometime in the next 200 years, someone (not necessarily a government) will start releasing aerosols into the upper atmosphere to reflect away more sunlight, preventing it from reaching the surface at all. Only military action could stop something like this, as any given country or rich enough individual or group could do it.

The real question is, will there be a way to remove these aerosols once the resulting cooling (together with increased sequestration of carbon) leads to an increase in surface ice? Or will they just dim the sun and leave a future generation to fix that?

No Highlander jokes, please.

I think a large percentage of baby boomers are starting to realize that they can never retire...

>> So you would rather put a burden on the poor who can't afford to fix their cars or buy newer ones??

Just because you're poor doesn't mean you have the right to pollute more than anyone else. The government could subsidize fixing the car, or the poor could instead try out subsidized public transportation, or the government could subsidize newer, more efficient cars. We can call it Cash for Clunkers.

Exactly. "GMOs" is as wide of a category as "chemicals", and I would laugh at, or run from, any scientist that said "chemicals are safe".

And how do you pay for the "IP" part of that "VoIP" if you don't have a job? It makes 10000x more sense to keep a prepaid cell phone than home internet access when you're unemployed. You can also go to the library for internet access, or to apply for jobs, etc., but if you're contacted by a recruiter you need to pick up the phone whether you're at the shelter getting dinner, or at the library, or in the bathroom.

Land lines are more expensive than cell phones. Why would an unemployed person have one?

And why do you assume that an unemployed person has a home?

And, if someone is unemployed and has a home, shouldn't they be out looking for a job all day, rather than sitting around hoping someone will call them? If they're sitting at home, they can't apply for jobs unless they also have internet access, which in your world must be an incredible luxury for the unemployed. Do you propose that they give out the land line number for the public library as their resume contact?

There are strategies to cool the planet using atmospheric seeding. They are only political if you try to do them over territory of a given country. Do them over the open ocean, and it's (if anything) a military problem.

This assumes there's someone with enough money and power to fund and execute such a strategy by fiat, who isn't also part of a government.

Unless, of course, you're talking about a jury vote. That's the point of juries - to decide facts when they aren't otherwise apparent. Those facts better be limited to those relevant to the case, though, and are only limited in scope to the outcome of that case as it was presented to that jury.

That's a Last Week with John Oliver quote.

Giving up mods to reply...

When something has been previously moderated "+1 Informative" but it is factually incorrect, then the previous moderation was wrong and the post is overrated. "-1 Overrated" corrects for the previous moderation in this case. This represents by far most of my use of the moderation.

When something has been previously moderated "+1 Insightful" but it is trite or inaccurate, then the previous moderation was wrong and the post is overrated. "-1 Overrated" corrects for the previous moderation in this case. This is pretty rare as I try to read deep meaning into even the shortest of "Insightful" posts.

I never use "-1 Overrated" for something that was previously rated as "+1 Interesting", as interesting is completely subjective. Nor do I ever use "-1 Overrated" for something that was previously rated as "+1 Funny", though if it's racist or sexist then "-1 Flamebait" might apply.

I rarely if ever use "+1 Underrated" at all, and never use "-1 Overrated" on something that has not previously been moderated up incorrectly.

Isn't it amazing how businesses have managed to turn fraud - a crime perpetrated against them, for which they are responsible for preventing it, detecting it, and absorbing any losses because of it - into "identity theft", a crime for which the consequences are dumped onto a third party who has to prove his or her innocence?

I think the corporate model now is simultaneously both "we own customer data we collected" and "the customer is responsible for his or her own data", nonsensical doublespeak designed to let them do what they want with minimal consequences.

AP style is to only capitalize the first word and proper nouns

https://www.apstylebook.com/?d...

search for "News media" and read the questions that follow

If NVidia build a fab, it would be great for them if/when their fab had cutting-edge processes and NVidia chips were the most profitable thing to run. But... what happens when their fab is out of date? NVidia chip designers would likely be forced to design for the NVidia fab anyway, and their hardware would fall behind. Or... what happens when their fab is updated? If they are one of the few on a new process, assuming they aren't sued by Intel for patent violations, should the NVidia fab lose out on potential revenue by building NVidia chips instead of more profitable Apple or Samsung chips?

Basically, if you aren't big enough and so far ahead of everyone else to keep all your own equipment running (i.e. Intel), nor are you able to contract in work (i.e. TSMC, GlobalFoundries), you aren't going to be successful with your own fab any more. You're either holding back your design shop, or holding back your fab, and either way you're not making as much profit as your competitors, which means you can't invest as much into your design shop or your fab.

Also, exploiting cultural differences. You won't get many Americans willing to live and eat in a dorm attached to the manufacturing plant, 800 miles from family, so they really have no distractions but work. (And of course you mention regulation, but having those workers for 12 hour shifts, 6 days a week, for 50 weeks straight can't hurt the bottom line - just the workers.)

That won't work, because it's much easier to mothball existing equipment, then bring it back online, than it is to invent, design, and build that equipment in the first place. Saudi Arabia would have to hold the price low indefinitely (increasing supply to keep up with increasing demand) or the price would creep back up until fracking is profitable again. And the cost for fracking will go down when you can recommission old equipment instead of buying new. (I doubt you can buy used equipment today because every piece every made is either broken or working a field already.)

In order for that strategy to work, you have to flood the market before alternatives are invented and designed. That's what happened in the '80s. There was a lot of talk about automobile efficiency after the oil crunch of the 1970s. While progress was made, the '80s oil boom and increased production slowed down a lot of the invention process. With solar efficiency where it is already, with viable electric cars here and more the horizon, and with fracking technology a sunk cost, I think it's too late. (Maybe it will slow the mindset shift necessary for the adoption of safer nuclear?)