Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:What is happening with the SJW stuff? (Score 1, Insightful) 242

The SJWs noticed they could make a lot of money working for a startup that has a crappy website and some VC funding, so they started getting jobs in the tech world. They didn't need to actually be able to do anything, because those VCs only cared that the company existed long enough to get an IPO. A company that pays a lot and lets them surf the web all day is ideal for an SJW.

But, yes, Poettering seems to pretty much follow all the rules of the SJW-ism, even if I haven't seen him out protesting with them. And systemd is a bloated, centralized bureaucracy imposed on the population because the Great Leader says so. Just like Communism.

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 4, Insightful) 242

There are plenty of programmers who can spew out hundreds of lines of crap code in a day.

The problem is that others then have to spend years fixing it.

It's even worse when you let the code-spewers actually design the system, because you'll never be allowed to go back and redo things right.

Comment Re:"The word 'genius' gets misused an awful lot," (Score 1, Funny) 37

He'll, of course, be most well known for his celebrated surgery theory on sexifolds, particularly the foundational Sexconker Decomposition Theorem which demonstrates that all sexifolds can be decomposed into basic topological components such as penisifolds, breastifolds, and analfolds. And if the sexifold is not oriented, then it has a peculiar bisexual structure.

Comment Re:And who was the big believer in carbon credits? (Score 1) 141

That someone that breaths coal smoke will have respiratory issues is obvious.

You are very correct that this is very similar to the AGW argument.

Yes... in a given context you can show X.

However that doesn't mean you can show some wider consequence is specifically the result of the coal smoke.

Let us say I operate a coal power plant. Let us say furthermore that I use filters on my stacks and the latest technology. My smoke is almost entirely water vapor and CO2.

Now... lets say a man in the neighboring town gets lung cancer.

Am I to blame for that or not?

You don't know.

I could be responsible... maybe.

But more likely I am not.

Your notion is to institute some assumed damages on every bit of emissions and put this money into some kind of state fund and then when people get cancer they draw upon that fund.

The problem with that idea is that there is really no way to know who is doing anything to anyone. Let us say that my power plant is set up in a place where there really aren't any people or the smoke blows out to sea or something. So... no one is actually breaking that smoke in until it has diluted to such an extent that the ability to cause respriatory issues is no longer even remotely credible.

Must I still pay your fee? Of course. Because while you claim to be dealing with externals, your real intent is to discourage the use of coal. That is fine by the way. I'm quite fine with you being against coal or pushing laws that are against coal. However you are misrepresenting yourself by saying you just want to deal with externals.

You do not. If you did, you'd show more interest in actually nailing down who specifically was responsible for what. That is a core aspect of ACTUAL cost accounting.

As to AGW... that is real doesn't mean it is a problem. The hysteria over AGW is based on the most extreme damage claims which have all been heavily debunked by everyone including the UN climate panel.

Absent the big consequences we have bigger things to worry about than that.

If you want to deal with the likely extremely moderate consequences than you can go for one of the several geo engineering options that are known to be effective.

Two of them that I like:

1. You can spray sea water in the air. For about 100 million dollars you can build some little boats that will be powered by the tides and the winds to run pumps and can blast salt water in the air which will cause more clouds and will moderately whiten the clouds causing additional reflection into space.

2. The second option which I assume you'll just hate involves releasing... I think it is carbon monoxide into the upper atmsophere. If I got the chemical wrong then so be it, but the point is to mimic a volcano. The amount of gas that needs to be released is something that could pass through a single garden hose.

There are drozens of other concepts that are known to work. Pick any of them. We just need to buy time for the technological change that will come.

Instead of wasting all our money on a stupid carbon trading system that will be looted and fat idiots will grow insanely rich on. We should put that money towards something useful.

Research into technology... not propaganda. Helping the third world develop responsibility. Investing in research to cure diseases.

THAT is worth while. The money being thrown at AGW is wasted. The people that think they're sticking it to the man or the evil corporations don't realize that the corporations LOVE AGW government spending. Who does the government pay? The big corps. And keep in mind the big corps are the ones making solar panels, wind mills, LED lights, and all the other stuff that is supposed to save you from THE END TIMES. And it gets better because look at all the pork spending going into AGW. These solar panel farms... the wind farms... the huge tax subsidies. The corps are making a KILLING on AGW.

As to hating dirty coal, we don't use dirty coal in the first world. So don't oppose coal in the first world. Oppose it in china or something.

Comment Re:Not the holy grail (Score 1) 246

Actually, no. Conservation of energy means that converting solar radiation in electricity simply changes the form of the energy, not the amount.

Energy can be heating up mass on Earth or it can be radiating to deep space. Solar power causes more energy to be contained on Earth, heating it up rather than the latter. Energy is conserved, but it need not be present on Earth. And I already stated the mechanisms by which this would happen.

Comment Re:And who was the big believer in carbon credits? (Score 1) 141

You'd have to show an actual causation to assign a cost. At best you have weak correlation.

As to being stuck trying to get too much accuracy. You're using the wrong words.

You mean I'm trying to get too much precision.

Accuracy is whether something is correct or not.

Precision is how many decimal places you can cite your figures to.

I am trying to ascertain accuracy however that is a question of whether your position is valid AT ALL not merely how precisely you can cite a figure.

As to some studies where you say you can nail down these figures... HOW? Your costs are all about various respiratory diseases. But you don't know what particular incident of lung cancer was caused by coal or whether it was because some liked to go on camping trips and breathed in too much camp fire smoke.

People pretend like lung cancer is a new thing. Its ancient. its just that our ancestors generally didn't live long enough for it to matter. And if they did... they just got sick and died and no one really knew why. Which didn't matter because they were getting sick and dying around the same time other old people were getting sick and dying for a thousand other reasons.

The point is there is no possible way you could have causation on any of this.

At best you could have correlation and correlation is very weak evidence.

As to you saying we're not talking about CO2... then the cleaner coal plants shouldn't bother you because they emit very little besides CO2.

Mission accomplished.

As to you saying you prefer nuclear... I have no problem with nuclear power. I was talking with a fellow the other day that was against nuclear at any price in any context. It was really sort of amazing. He said he was open minded but when you got into it... what he meant was "I think there's no way to make it safe so when I say I'd be okay with it if it were done safely that's just another way of me saying you can't do it."

So you've got people like that running around making nuclear build outs complicated.

You hate coal? I don't know what to tell you. Its here to stay as well. I'd suggest you find some reasonable technological adaptations we can ad to the plants that you find acceptable. Short of that... the coal is going to be burned until something else comes along that is at least as cheap and has less political headaches than nuclear.

Its the politics more than anything that makes nuclear such a pain in the ass. Here you're going to say "but its not cheaper"... it is cheaper... the way accounting is done... everywhere... it is cheaper. And no one is changing the accounting system because no one can quantify the damages specifically, attribute the damage in a causal manner, or determine who did what to whom. And without that... its not stopping. The best I think you're going to get are the filters they put on the coal plants. I know that isn't good enough for you... but... it is what is happening.

The power is needed. It will be supplied. We have thousands of years of coal in the US alone.

Comment Re:Not the holy grail (Score 1) 246

1) It's not the holy grail. It's been shown that if our energy consumption continues to grow along its current trajectory, then the temperature at the surface of the earth will reach the boiling point in several hundred years. Now, presumably the growth of our energy consumption will slow down at some point. But what this thought experiment demonstrates is that any power source that generates denovo heat on the earth is part of the problem. Ultimately, the source of our power will have to be the sun.

Solar also generates heat since it is increasing the albedo of a part of Earth and the result electricity produced will generate heat through work or inefficiency.

And physical exponential growth forever is not a serious scenario to consider.

The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives. -- Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project

Working...