So yeah, I don't see a point in blaming AMD here.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
So yeah, I don't see a point in blaming AMD here.
From what I've seen is that this whole discussion us full of straw man arguments, ad hominem, ad nauseam, circular logic, appeals to emotion and moralizing.
If anything this showed me again that arguing on the internet is mostly pointless.
Looking back at my time at the university there were very few female students. A true minority, if you will. Most of those women were rather geeky and talking to some of them revealed for me that they didn't have it easy growing up with their particular hobbies. The female geek seemed to have an extra hard time in society because they performed in a field that was somehow attributed to boys and frowned upon by other girls of younger ages, making them social pariahs, because they weren't interested in most of that "girly" stuff, that simply every girl at that age had to be in head over heels. Now I realize that this is clearly some sample bias, but combined with all the efforts universities take nowadays to encourage women to enter the STEM fields and their little success it made me curious.
These things lead me to believe that the lack of women in the STEM fields is mostly a result of cultural stereotyping, which begins at an early age. Most likely it starts at home with their parents, TV shows that their parents watch and so on. Therefore I think that Kari Byron did serve as a useful role model for people that deserve a role model, a women being successful doing geeky stuff while not being super boring. While you may question the "science" that was done on the show and find out that it is of little value to scientific literate people, they actually managed to reach a lot of the rest, perhaps got them curious and thinking about some of that rather mundane stuff.
From my experience with internet forums, especially gaming forums, youtube commentaries, twitter and facebook, 98% of the observable internet IQs would barely scratch the three digit threshold. A lot of people appear to be well-read, yet basic logic seems to escape most of them. Non-sequitur, strawmen, false dilemma, practically the whole list of logical fallacies can be found there. Yet a lot of people are easily fooled and mistake a few fancy words for competence, which is probably why politicians get elected despite being dumber than a bag of rocks.
I'd say, that most of the internet has about the same average IQ as the general population. Some of US may be a bit more tech savvy, but that's it.
When someone sells their excess energy over the electrical grid of a private entity, then they should be held accountable for maintenance costs, but also after all the subsidies an electrical company gets from the sate.
The thing with the energy prices is a little bit more complicated. But we can agree that a full market rate is bogus. There's a similar problem where I live. Power companies have to buy at a fixed rate which they dump on the end user by increasing the prices.
The problem that I see is that article makes it sound as if all kinds of lease agreements are illegal for PV, makes it sound like they make it harder for you to become independent, even if you only want to provide your own energy, without selling any.
Owning large, usable sunshine roofs is often used as an argument, because it puts other people, that don't own such property, at a disadvantage. But the basic logic behind those arguments makes it sound like I'm not entitled to use the rainwater, which is collected in tanks, because I can use rainwater for my plants instead of tap water. Therefore I should pay for maintenance of the water grid (which I already do for sewer maintenance, where I live). And as we're already there, then the plants I grow myself for eating and selling are also a bad thing. If I eat my own food and don't buy it from the market, then I'm hurting said market, and should be held accountable for logistic costs.
From this perspective it sounds like the big companies want people to stay dependent and convinced the government to enforce this by laws.
According to the article these lease agreements are illegal in Florida.
This does sound like distortion of the market, because a common practice, that makes it possible for home onwers to create their own electrical power and sell excess power to other people, is stifled by laws.
Chinese sites remove comments themselves too. They get "guidance" from the government on what to remove. Sounds like the French situation is exactly the same: the government lays out laws saying what is and is not acceptable speech and apparently, virtually all comments on this particular conflict are unacceptable.
That's a strawman.
This is not an indicator for censorship on virtually all comments on this particular conflict. You don't know about the content of the comments. It could mean that virtually all comments on this conflict are in fact blatant anti-semitism, trolls and flames. Israel and Palestine has always been a very delicate topic, much like all political and religious debates. A lot of people that like to comment on these things seem to be strongly biased towards one of the sides.
For example you can check out the news section on RT.com pick one of the News about Israel and Gaza and scroll down to the comment section, which is not moderated, as far as I know. Have fun.
German Newspapers do practically the same thing as the French. The government only guides them to remove illegal content like, holocaust denial (which is a crime in Germany). Pretty much everything else is the websites exercising their own freedom of expression. It's their website, their comment system and therefore they're allowed to control its contents. This is very much like your householder's rights. If there's some guy on your lawn shouting something that you don't agree with you have the right to shoo him away but when he's on public property then you have no right to constrict his speech.
Most of our major newspapers mostly censor insults, trolls and baseless racism, at least from what I've seen. I can't provide any statistics to back this up. There's plenty of criticism towards Israel and the US, but on a civilized level.
Link to Original Source
Certainly, it's not as cost effective as other methods and requires elaborate planning. But no matter the technological level of advancement this has been, and most likely will continue to be, a very serious security threat. Simply because it targets a vulnerability that will be very hard to fix - our social, human nature.
Big Business in general is hardly interested in reducing energy consumption, because in the short term that would lower profit, and you know, you can't lower profit! Another way would be to lay off some of the work force. Most politicians don't like that because "jobs" are always a solid vote getter, and lower profit means less money from taxes, another inconvenience. So most governments just play ball with Big Business, creating these stupid carbon credits, that mostly benefit Big Business.
Neither does this mean that all those CO2 measurements are fabricated, nor that AGW as a whole is a lie, but it means that AGW was hijacked by Big Business and introduced into politics to suit their own purposes. Beneficial changes would be merely secondary effects, which are nice to have, but hardly a requirement.
It doesn't matter if it's people, foxes or peas, for genetics the same principles apply to all living things that reproduce in the same fashion, as in two sexes that combine their genetic material into an offspring.
Agriculture has used selective breeding for plants and animals, that follows the very same principle, for ages with great success.
The big difference between us and 'lower animals' as well as plants is that we created a system of morals and ethics that mostly apply to us and not those other lifeforms. And since most of us aren't sociopaths unable to feel empathy we don't like the concept of eugenics applied to the human society because it would have very inconvenient consequences. I wouldn't want it. But all that doesn't change the fact that the basis for Eugenics is in fact scientific.
At this point in the "NSA-incident" the current government probably would like nothing more than to get some dirt on Russia.
With a really large economy, without losing much GDP. The point that's being demonstrated is that a power infrastructure changeover can be done without sacrificing being a first world nation along the way.
Germany didn't lose much GDP because the industry underwent changes in these years too. Since Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU there is massive influx of new workers from these countries, of which the majority demands about half the pay a regular German worker does. This increased productivity despite the ever rising energy costs for most of the non energy intensive industry. In the process it damaged the economy of adjacent countries, in which companies choose to outsource their production lines to Germany, where production is cheaper. But can the German economy keep up with that?
Minimum wages are being introduced which will make all these current low priced jobs about 60% more expensive. Eventually the influx of new workers will slow down and even come to an end. We'll have to see what happens when the last fission power plant goes offline in 2022.
Other than that the current German government is planning to build more lignite power plants for our base load demands on energy, which will definitely increase the CO2 output. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it? The coal power Lobby is a strong one here in Germany and since it will be good for the German economy by create new jobs on a large scale, the Government plays ball with them.