Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:What? (Score 1) 324

I live in the exurbs of a major Metro Area (Minneapolis/St Paul).
The *best* I can get is 20mbs, at exorbitant prices. The best normal price option is 10mbps, which was the very best possible residential until about last March.

So you're saying we should "give" everyone 10mbps because that's so horrible?

That, simply, is nonsense.

Comment: Re:The over-65's swung it for No (Score 4, Informative) 465

by argStyopa (#47946379) Attached to: Scotland Votes No To Independence

Those foolish over-65s.
They voted reflexively, after reviewing trivial issues like:
- the SNP's assurances that Scotland would be a member of NATO and the EU were completely wrong (both the EU and NATO rebuffed the 'automatic membership' that the SNP was asserting they were entitled to)
- losing their currency (The British public was 2/3 against letting Scotland keep the pound. The Exchequer had said no, and most economists said the 'Sterling Union' proposed by the SNP was a stupid idea)
- The departure of most major Scottish business southward - hell, even the Royal BANK OF SCOTLAND was leaving if "Yes" won the vote...
- SNPs domestic agenda that pretty much amounted to a Socialist Utopia funded entirely on North Sea oil that they felt they would automagically inherit without contest (never mind revenues have been falling there for a decade or more)

Essentially the SNP's platform was "if everyone does what we say should happen, with the most optimistic interpretation of everything possible, nobody disagrees, and Britain pays for everything, it'll all be hunky-dory...probably" was an exercise in extended political farce that only had currency because Cameron (stupidly) gave it credibility.

Let's remember too that the referendum was NON-BINDING. There was promised a referendum, and then "we would act in the best interests of the Scottish people"....that's all.

Maybe - as has been abundantly proved in many other contexts - the 16-18s that got to vote were easily swayed by emotions, having not thought through the issues seriously and more likely the 65s just barely countered them?

FWIW, I think this would be a brilliant time to do as some conservative MP suggested and re-write the 1707 Act of Union to enfranchise each 'kingdom' within the UK equally, and no longer allow a bunch of whingers in Glasgow to play the tune.
I admire much about Scotland, but this referendum seemed to be playing to their stupid side.

Comment: Re:Not a problem... (Score 1) 314

by argStyopa (#47941151) Attached to: New Study Projects World Population of 11B by 2100

Except that doesn't actually seem to matter.
People in the most godforsaken areas of the planet, well past their carrying capacity, continue to have children like it's going out of style.

If you claim "people can't live in that dense a space because there's not enough water" I'd point to the Sahel.

Comment: Re:Not a problem... (Score 1) 314

by geekoid (#47940917) Attached to: New Study Projects World Population of 11B by 2100

"They are dangerous with high amounts of crime. "
not really.

"They discourage innovation"
  false.
More innovation happen becasue there is more communication.

" little room for building things"
depends on the city. Cities created to support manufacturing usually have a lot of ware housing, and older building; both of which are perfect for start ups.

" They have nosy neighbors who try to mandate what you can do in your own home."
when the byproduct of what you do leaves your walls, then they have every right to do that, and visa versa.
There are also nosy neighbors in the suburbs.

I'm no against suburbs. In fact, I love the suburbs, and hate living in cities.

Comment: Re:It's not the space, it'd the food. (Score 2) 314

by geekoid (#47940531) Attached to: New Study Projects World Population of 11B by 2100

The problem is not waste, it's distribution. Even with the current level of waste, everyone could eat 3 meals and snacks, everyday.
Getting it to people is a lot harder.

If we ended all food waste right now, there would not be 1 less person going hungry.
Hell, we can't even get food to people going hungry in the US without a political shit storm happening from people who think it's the same thing as communism.

Comment: Re:CO2 contributions by population? (Score 3, Informative) 314

by geekoid (#47940397) Attached to: New Study Projects World Population of 11B by 2100

The CO2 being produced through breathing is a net neutral.
Plants are carbon neutral. They have been since the carboniferous era.
CO2 from using power will be the issue, unless we start a aggressive plan to stop using CO2 emitting technology for power.
By aggressive, I mean 75 years.

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Working...