I agree if you had only said "level of consumption" but "quality of life?" For instance, I believe the fastest growth of quality of life in the area of "lighting" is coming from the explosion of cheap solar powered LED lights. I would argue that such quality of life improvements have negligible ecological impact while significantly improving quality of life. I would also argue that it makes more sense to take such decentralized approaches at this point of human technological progress than the old and proven "dumb" way of centralized consumption.
. . . creative thinking and ingenuity. There's a sizable portion of people that really can't produce that.
My experience has been contrary . . . I believe everyone I have met, irregardless of their job, has had their own unique since of creativity and ingenuity. However, making money from such things in today's economy also requires a set of very specialized skills and the scope of the type of creativity that can be useful to a given application can be quite limited. It seems like a more sophisticated economy should be able to support a wider range of creative thinking, but it would require a significant change from today's world of overspecialization. I suppose if everyone had access to their own AI that could fill in the gaps in their own capabilities while leveraging their strengths . . .
We could all complain here about the optimists, but the true pessimists would not be able to participate because they have all already killed themselves.
Now, consider the fact that medical treatment carries significantly more intrinsic risk to the user than smart-phone usage (though user born risk varies. .
(or whatever the Chinese version of lobbying is, they probably just call it bribery).
Interesting. A language with less redundancy must be more efficient.
Actually, I think it is more complicated than that. For instance, a small decrease in electricity demand would not prompt Germany to start dismantling plants. Some plants can easily be used less, while other may not. Older coal plants designed only for base load face significant challenges when trying to operate to accommodate turbulent demand. Accordingly, a downturn in demand could result in a higher mix of coal vs gas, but only because the gas generators are more flexible than the coal plants.
Another point worth mentioning is that improved efficiency is also the cause of decreasing demand. Unfortunately I am not able to find an actual percentage breakout, but I would guess that it is not insignificant due to recent trends like LED lighting. Accordingly, I think it would be unfair to exclude the efficiency improvement portion from the mix and then say that Germany was getting less green because of an increased coal mix. We should be comparing the work accomplished by electricity, not just raw electricity production.
Exactly and when the regulated schmoozes the regulator, what else could the regulated be trying to sell other than various flavors of corruption? That is why, in this case, the schmoozing can only come at the detriment of society as a whole, and it is a significant example of how rampant regulatory capture is in our society.
"I've been invited to boxes by vendors before"
If I were a stock holder of your company then I would take issue with that because part of the price your company is being charged by that vendor covers such activities (which either reduces dividends or intrinsic value of the company). It is simply a form of wealth transfer to the corrupt and a textbook example of the principle-agent dilemma (unless you are both in this example).
You know, for awhile I thought it was the overwhelming power of the wealthy that prevented change, but now I get the sense that it is the underwhelming intellectual capability of people like yourself that are dragging us down. Happy 4th. . .
I wonder how many unique individual DNA can be extracted on average by taking a sample of rain run-off from a busy city street? Let me coin the process here as "Gutter Diving."
Can you repost your scenario . .
Sorry, I have never seen a "repost" feature on Slashdot (you appear to have been here longer than me, so perhaps you can clue me in on that feature).
Furthermore, NYC is the most populated, densely packed city in the U.S. If you are going to maximize human suffering from a nuclear blast (or MOAB, per other posters), that is the primary target in the U.S. Since the point of my post was that having your own 777 could allow you to pick the optimal position to maximize damage, I believe my choice of NYC was reasonable.
We need to divert the terrorists to somewhere else
I doubt Slashdot posts will be able to divert terrorists . . .
Anyway, I think others have already put a lot more thought into this.