Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Economic system (Score 1) 571

by Kohath (#48466955) Attached to: Two Google Engineers Say Renewables Can't Cure Climate Change

I would think saving the planet would be motivation enough.

That only works on the truest of true believers.

But if nothing else, I think the US government should fund and subsidize the shift to a new energy infrastructure, through research grants, tax incentives, etc.

Using money to motivate people. That works.

In a larger scope, it is interesting to me that profit is the only way we can think of to motivate people. It's as if we weren't creative beings at heart. Absent the profit motive, I think people would create and build things out of necessity, creativity, or a desire to make life better for oneself and others. Profit is actually a poor motivator because a well-done job or quality product is only a by product of a desire for profit. If a profit can be made with shoddy work or an inferior product, that's just as well; because the motivation is profit, not doing a good job.

You don't need to motivate people to do what they already want to do. But they're probably already doing that, so how will you get anyone to change?

The US government has shown that it will come up with large amounts of money when properly motivated. We need a Manhattan Project ...

In WW2, the US was attacked. This is an obvious motivating factor. Climate change is something with ambiguous consequences in the distant future. "Something bad might happen someday" isn't really similar to "we're under attack".

If you give up on using money, you can only motivate change by telling a convincing story or threatening people. That's why people focus on money.

Comment: Re:Nuclear doesn't work either (Score 1) 571

by Kohath (#48463943) Attached to: Two Google Engineers Say Renewables Can't Cure Climate Change

But they don't say anything like this:

The problem isn't cheap energy but man made global warming and climate change; the CO2 levels are now so massive that inventing a zero emission ultra cheap energy source, that globally replaced all other polluting energy sources in an instant, no longer is enough stop the global warming process going on for hundreds of years.

They didn't address the "what if everything changed in an instant" case in their article.

Comment: Yes, the gains greatly outweigh that price. (Score 1) 385

by SuperKendall (#48463077) Attached to: How Intel and Micron May Finally Kill the Hard Disk Drive

So you would pay $1200 for a hard drive "without hesitation"?

100% Yes for that storage space that ran at Samsung's claimed 1.6GB/s speed...

It would make a huge difference for image management where I'm often loading many 60MB TIFF files in the course of looking over processed images.

Now mind you I'd be backing that up on the cheaper "real" hard drives, but for working with that speed would be fantastic and easily worth the money in terms of saved time and frustration over the life of the drive.

The thing is, that drive will probably be more like $5k which is a much harder amount to take... probably $2k is the edge for my own use.

Comment: Re:Economic system (Score 1) 571

by Kohath (#48463065) Attached to: Two Google Engineers Say Renewables Can't Cure Climate Change

What's the alternative motivation besides profit? How do you get some people to do what you want without paying them?

Fear won't work. People can just decide not to be afraid. And, since doomsday predictions have always been wrong, they would be wise not to fear the end you're warning them about. Altruism won't work either.

People focus on profit/money because its a clear way to motivate others. Everything else is just salesmanship, putting a gun to someone's head, or asking "pretty please".

Comment: Re:Well if two google engineers say so (Score 1) 571

by Kohath (#48459777) Attached to: Two Google Engineers Say Renewables Can't Cure Climate Change

A common argument is that climate change can be avoided if everyone makes a number of small changes in their lives. These guys have determined that marginal, easily affordable changes in people's lives are insufficient according to some climate models. (Unless there's are large, unforeseeable technological advances.)

In other words, a specific approach or category of approaches won't work if you believe the forecasts of some severe climate models. The obvious response would be to stop advocating the unworkable approaches and/or re-examine the climate models to see if they might be overestimating the challenge.

Perhaps the article communicates this poorly. It's still useful info though.

Comment: Re:Worth watching this site for a few years (Score 1) 362

There actually hasn't been warming (on average) for over a decade. But it makes it easier for lunkheads like yourself to get the message not to panic if I pretend like there is, and then point out warming doesn't matter - otherwise closed-minded zealots like yourself couldn't read past the initial message, even though scientifically accurate (I know you're not used to believing things with actual proof instead of faith behind them). People not panicking and doing stupid things as a result is my primary mission.

I give it 50/50 we'll start seeing a cooling trend again in a decade or so. I give it zero percent chance you will ever see one.

I'll let you have the last word because the pig and the lunkhead have much in common...

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein