Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:say it isn't so! (Score 1) 552

by Art Challenor (#47458491) Attached to: The Last Three Months Were the Hottest Quarter On Record
I understand the goal perfectly and agree with it. The current implementation moves money from useful organizations, power generation, manufacturing, etc. - the sector that produces jobs, growth, etc. in general money - to the sector that, primarily, leeches off those useful organizations.

If the implementation were the that the funds from the carbon tax were going directly to promoting renewables (another source of jobs and productive economic activity) then we'd have something worthwhile.

Comment: Re:say it isn't so! (Score 1) 552

by Art Challenor (#47457553) Attached to: The Last Three Months Were the Hottest Quarter On Record
What's surprising is that the financial industry really stand to gain BIG from the carbon "tax" and so you would expect the Heartland Institute to be promoting their best interest.

The scam works about like this. Anyone wanting to generate CO2 would have to buy carbon credits, imaginary items which are sold and speculated on by big finance. As CO2 limits decrease price increases = big profit.

It's like a tax, except the revenues go directly to the banks, bypassing the government entirely.

Comment: Re:Technically, it's not a "draft notice" (Score 1) 205

I think that you're missing the point of Selective Service Registration. They already know who you are, your age and where you live (they sent you the notice). In principle, you get to choose which service you would like to be drafted into, but in practice the major demand is for "cannon fodder" - so your choice would be irrlevant.

Once you eliminate all the stated reasons, all that is left, and so the true purpose of the Selective Service registration, is to attempt to be a nucleus for protest. Those who chose to protest the military-industrial complex in the US by failing to register can all be rounded up and eliminated. Or, the next best thing, eliminate them from all federal programs, which, unless they are massively independently wealthy will prevent them from ever being in a position where their views will be heard.

Comment: Re:Solaris not well supported by OSS toolchain (Score 1) 183

Actually the question is really freaking stupid. If you're serious about embedded development you cross-compile on the fastest computer you can find and then deploy to the target board. If the question had been "what's a good embedded target" it would have made marginally more sense, except that parameters there are how much i/o volume/cost, performance, etc.

Comment: Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (Score 1) 497

I'd recommend against using those and use ones that don't have such a large carbon footprint. For example:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-sco...

or solar:

http://www.reuters.com/article...

so long as you realize that the myth that solar panels generate more CO2 lifetime than say coal (or even natural gas) has long ago been de-bunked. (max 72g vs 1.68lbs or 2lbs for coal) (http://www.edfenergy.com/energyfuture/energy-gap-climate-change/solar-and-the-energy-gap-climate-change and http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/...)

Comment: Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (Score 1) 497

Given that there's remarkably little proof that this is not caused by humans, wouldn't it be better to follow the path that would avoid a catastrophe in the event that the models are close and it is human caused.

I'd rather look around in the future and curse the scientist for being wrong than acknowledge that they were right, but that it's now too late to do anything.

There's a path forward that does not carry huge economic damage, indeed may help the economy. The problem is that this is at the expense of the oil and coal companies. Organizations not noted for doing the right thing but for protecting their limited interests with large campaign contributions and educational trips for politicians (not to be confused with bribes).

Comment: Re:funny (Score 1) 567

As I mentioned, you are entitled to your opinions, but you are NOT entitled to your own facts. Coal usage in the EU is decreasing, renewable use (not fossil fuel generation) is increasing:
http://theenergycollective.com...
http://www.renewableenergyworl...
(older data) http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-...
While the price per kWh in Germany is high, it's not even the highest in the EU and certainly not the highest in the world. That statement is just plain WRONG. The price in Germany is not even that far out of line with the rest of the EU where prices are generally at least double the US rates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

Comment: Re:funny (Score 1) 567

Wow, one comment that Obama is a socialist and one that the Christian Democrats in Germany are a facist dictatorship.

These must be comments from the US, the home of the NSA and the largest domestic spying program in the world.

In the US, as in Germany, you are entitled to your own opinion, however only in the US is there a clear belief that ignorance makes your opinion more worthwhile. Here's a clue, it doesn't. Study some facts, get information from places other than FOX news and come back when you actually know something about, well, anything really, but you could start with geography and the poltics of countries in Europe. Here's a hint, Ted Cruz is not electable (even on the crackpot fringe) and Obama is center-right anywhere outside the US.

Comment: Re:funny (Score 1) 567

Yep, just like Germany which, one day last month generated 50% of their electrical power from solar and is planning to phase out all coal-burning generation (they've already eliminated nuclear after Fukushima). Oh, wait, they have one of the strongest industrial economies in the world. Or Estonia with close to 100% Internet connectivity and a network of EV charging stations nationwide.

Comment: Re:I beg to differ. (Score 1) 370

Yet, when the MPAA/RIAA come to the door, they figure out a whole scheme that goes beyond the DCMA to block, or put ads on, material that their secret algorithm finds to be infringing on copyright.

So, they've already demonstrated that they CAN filter content. I see lots of repercussions to this ruling, but I'm not at all sympathetic to Google's plight - they already demonstrated that they have the technology and have used it for evil purposes.

If entropy is increasing, where is it coming from?

Working...