Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:DGW Dinsaurogenic Global Warming - crisis of ti (Score 1) 377

by kencurry (#47418753) Attached to: Blueprints For Taming the Climate Crisis

...most plants alive today ALSO did not evolve to exist in such high CO2 levels? That such CO2 levels will cause dramatically higher temperatures and vastly different climatology, which will more than offset (ie: Kill the plants) any gains from higher CO2 levels? You also realize that CO2 is not "plant food" ? Plants use far more than just CO2? And plants are in general carbon nuetral, using and storing carbon while alive (in the form of growth), which then gets released back into the biosphere when they die?

Basic CO2 concentration guidelines:

The effects of increased CO2 levels on adults at good health can be summarized: normal outdoor level: 350 - 450 ppm acceptable levels: below 600 ppm complaints of stiffness and odors: 600 - 1000 ppm ASHRAE and OSHA standards: 1000 ppm general drowsiness: 1000 - 2500 ppm adverse health effects expected: 2500 - 5000 ppm maximum allowed concentration within a 8 hour working period: 5000 ppm

I'm too lazy to search the google:

... but wasn't there originally very high CO2 levels in earth's atmosphere, which kicked up temps. raised atmospheric moisture conc., therefore plant life went wild, eventually becoming so abundant as to drive down CO2 levels so that animal kingdom could thrive, as CO2 dropped plant life dropped off dramatically, eventually forming the goo in the ground that we now call oil, and burn to put the CO2 back.

A giant CO2 do loop

Comment: Re:Does it really matter? (Score 1) 248

by kencurry (#47205917) Attached to: In the year since Snowden's revelations ...
A few years ago I would have agreed wholeheartedly with this approach. Now I find that I question whom to trust. A government issued electronically controlled system - who would trust that if you became an NSA target that they don't get you blacklisted from ever voting/driving/purchasing/flying etc. anything again? That vs. a dumb paper system, with all its flaws, but can't be electronically manipulated by NSA. Now, I say stick with the later system.

Comment: version 1.0 (Score 1) 301

Seems to me, buying an autonomous car should not absolve the owner of liability or responsibility, and the owner (or designee) needs to be in the vehicle as it is being operated. The owner has to have adequate insurance and passed a valid written exam, which would cover vehicle code and the limitations of the technology.

For car companies, it seems they should have proven the technology out with minimum 5 years of safe driving record in controlled studies (just like FDA would require controlled studies to prove out drug/devices). Basically, you are buying this tech, but you are still responsible.

Okay, but then who would pay for this? Seems like early adopters would be elderly who want to be mobile, but don't have the driving reflexes,the physically handicapped, and those who would just rather be driven than to drive and consider this a luxury purchase.

Let's say the above scenario goes for 5 -10 years, then the tech gets less expensive, and the public becomes more trusting. At that point, V2.0 is a truly autonomous vehicle that can operate without any owner/passenger on board ( you can send it to go pick up relatives at the airport.)

I can see the above scenario working, of course legal details have to be hammered out etc.

Comment: Better answer - bring tech to problems of mining (Score 1) 581

by kencurry (#46726877) Attached to: Michael Bloomberg: You Can't Teach a Coal Miner To Code
Mining has problems; no doubt better technology can lessen the impact of those problems. Surely there is a ton of opportunity there. We need the raw materials for energy and we need more efficient ways to get them out of the ground. There is plenty to do, people at all ends of the scale of intelligence, physical strength, emotional depth, personal charm etc. etc. etc. can be gainfully employed doing what needs to be done for their own region of the country.

There is absolutely no need for a one-sized fits all "just teach them to code" statement from anyone, ever.

Comment: Re:Higher standards are normal and appropriate (Score 1) 353

by kencurry (#46622635) Attached to: If Ridesharing Is Banned, What About Ride-Trading?

Driver training should not be a requirement. If it isn't a requirement for normal drivers, who use the same roads as the cabs, then why are cab drivers required to get some kind of special training?

Because when you drive other people they are literally entrusting their lives to your driving competence. While you cannot control what other drivers do, we can ensure that the people who do transport others are of a sufficient competency standard to minimize unnecessary risk to passengers. Not all drivers who can pass the basic driving test are sufficiently competent to drive other people in exchange for money. It's the exact same reason we demand that commercial airline pilots have a LOT more training than civil aviation pilots. It's about minimizing risk.

Furthermore, cab drivers/companies are granted a quasi-monopoly on their service. It's perfectly reasonable to insist that the standards be a bit higher in exchange for that privilege.

Car maintenance should not be a requirement. Normal drivers aren't required to follow any special maintenance schedule or get any inspections, so why should cabs?

Because if you want to drive you own heap of junk and endanger your own safety when the axle falls off then that is your choice. When you are transporting other people however, they should have a reasonable expectation that the axle is not going to fall off or that they will not find themselves stranded due reasonably preventable mechanical difficulties.

Bad drivers and dangerously maintained cars affect the other drivers on the road already, and they could have a passenger of their own choosing as well. So, this is nothing new with organized ride-sharing.

Also, as far as the whole "how can you trust a stranger in this system", use rating system with user feedback like ebay does.

Comment: Re:Bit coin is highly misunderstood by many (Score 2) 191

by kencurry (#46434599) Attached to: The Tangled Tale of Mt. Gox's Missing Millions
Doesn't this story of MtGox completely invalidate the idea of Bitcoin? It was made to appear safe due to an algorithm, but obviously it can disappear without a trace and then what? There was never any sovereign authority behind that currency. Thus no international muscle to go track down the bad guys or figure out what happened. If anything, the international banking community will simply say "told you so..."

news: gotcha