Comment drones away (Score 1) 215
If a drone malfunctions at 500ft, it's going to hurt when it lands on someone.
Really? You could find a scientist who denies that there's been warming? We have so much evidence of this it would be almost inconceivable...
If a survey says 97% think there's been warming, then it means 3% don't think there's been warming.
How the Fuck do you know what they use terms for?
Read scientific publications my friend, and you too can know how scientists use common terms.
I've been hearing about batteries being needed for sun and wind is as long as I've been hearing about sun and wind...
Exactly. It's more like "yet another market that needs a cheap solution"
The scientific consense is to cut down on CO2 emissions, down to zero.
Stop breathing.
So if a large proportion of these climate scientists don't think that doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration will cause problematic warming what (according to them) is causing the current problematic warming trend?
Do you understand the logical fallacy of "loaded question?" Look it up, because your question commits that fallacy.
Most scientists accept that there's been some warming. How much of it is caused by CO2 is an open question, because the models need adjusting (though to be fair, the main difficulty is likely in over-estimating feedbacks). Scientists disagree on that problem, but the main question that matters from a practical standpoint is, "what should we do?" There's no consensus on this at all.
1) Should we do nothing, because eventually technology will replace coal before anything bad happens? (this is suggested by John Christy).
2) Should we do nothing, even though damage will be caused, because the damage will be easier to fix than to prevent? (I believe Bjorn Lomborg holds this view).
3) Should we replace all coal plants with nuclear immediately, even at great expense? (this is proposed by James Hansen)
4) Should we spend a lot of money on research for fusion?
5) Should we spend a lot of money to help push forward the electric car? (I saw this proposed in the Wall Street Journal)?
6) Should we replace all coal power with wind and solar? (this isn't actually possible with today's technology, but some people want it)
7) Should we agree to the Kyoto protocol, damaging the economy while making little impact on CO2 release?
8) Should we agree to the Copenhagen accord, which will do little, but cost billions in transfer payments to impoverished countries?
This is just scratching the surface of possible responses, and there is absolutely no scientific consensus on how to respond to AGW, or even if it needs a response.
Add into that the fact that countries like Ukraine were meant to be buffer states. States that didn't hold too closely to the west but weren't part of Russia to give Russia a sense of security. Historically Russia has seen pressure from two major geopolitical areas, Europe and China. It has become a relatively paranoid country.
You have to be careful with generalizations about regions like this, because historically, Ukraine was once the most powerful country in Europe
that was too many choices.
Now it wasn't. Maybe from some obscure business standpoint it was 'better,' but to me it was like having more playgrounds.
The reason there are fewer now has nothing to do with standardization, it's because they weren't able to keep up with the manufacturing processes. At the embedded level, where manufacturing process doesn't matter as much, there are still a lot of different ISAs. Recently I've been playing with the Parallax Propeller
Neutrinos have bad breadth.
