Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:And who was the big believer in carbon credits? (Score 1) 148

What you're trying to do is ASSUME my damage from my emissions... particularly to cancer rates etc which you can't know and you clearly don't care. You just want to level a fine for emitting certain gases.

Don't forget the particulates.

No, you're reaching the same as cigarette executives. I acknowledge that any levies for damages has to be estimated. As the amounts go up, eventually yes, it does become possible to make closer estimates.

But I maintain that charging something close to the damages is better than charging nothing in most cases.

But you're not internalizing costs if you do that. You're just leveling a fine for X emissions. You can show that clearly. You can say "you emitted X amount of Y chemical"... and we have a tax of Z for every X of Y chemical emitted. Done.

Actually, taxing it is a classic method of internalizing costs. I maintain that calling it a 'fine' is a misnomer. It's a fee, a tax. The difference is subtle, but important. You see, if we call it a fine, we open up pollution industry to lawsuits, after all, they're doing wrong by the government's own word. Now if we call it a fee, that doesn't happen, we can still have industry, and industry is important.

I have no problem with you doing that. But you're not internalizing costs. To internalize a cost implies that you know what the costs are per emission or at least per power plant and not as some median average but that that power plant is personally responsible for...

To bring back your original complaint - accuracy vs precision. A fee per pollutant is accurate, while it might not be precise. But it's still closer than the alternate.

Which means you have to assume. And that's fine. Tell me you're assuming and make it clear you're assuming. Don't tell me you know when you don't know.

Fine. We're assuming that we know approximately what the damages from the pollution are and are charging based on that assumption. We're using the best collected science available to come up with a rough estimate that, while not perfect(as I've said MANY TIMES) is closer than the current zero.

After all, you apparently feel that terms like 'in the ballpark' implies a precise measurement.

If, as you say, global warming could be completely rolled back for a few billion, well, that's pocket change to the oil and coal companies. They'd be pushing for it in every government.

My problem with you is not what you're doing but the argument you're using for the thing you're doing. Its sophistry. You're spinning this weird argument to justify your position that is fallacious.

Weird and nonstandard, maybe, but you're going to have to do better than simply say my argument is fallacias.

Let me boil it down for you:
While we cannot precisely measure the damage caused by pollution from various sources, we can at least estimate it. By charging what amounts to a 'pollution tax' for these releases, we provide an economic incentive to contain, control and reduce these pollutants. I would replace the EPA's 'mandate all controls, no matter how expensive' strategy, because it strangles development and sends production overseas which lack even basic pollution controls. If the economic activity doesn't justify the expense of the pollution, then it shouldn't take place. If it does, then it does.

The job is going to be flawed. Everything humans do is. All we can do is our best.

So you're going to have not just call it 'fallacious'. You're going to actually have to post sources proving me false. Because thus far you've posted 4 links about some geo-engineering ideas that even the developers don't know if they're going to work. I find them interesting, but you haven't proven me wrong. You haven't proven any of my starting points false. Simply calling them so is far from enough.

Comment Re:"Denali" = anagram for "Denial" (Score 1) 366

Oooh, grep puzzles! I came up with a way to do it in one regular expression, but it would be way too long to type out. So.......
This guy came up with a way that seems to work. The second regular expression there is a puzzle on its own. The -v means to invert the matching (that is, reject anything that matches, and accept anything that doesn't match). Took me a while to figure out how it works, but I think I got it.....

Comment Re:TFA: "For the first time in recorded history... (Score 1) 211

Except ships at sea. And the Cat 4 storms probably sank them before they could get the word out.

Ships at see tried really hard not to be close enough to any storm to get any sort of grasp of the wind speed within. The captain didnt say "That storm on the horizon doesn't look that bad from here. Lets sail towards it." That sort of captain gets thrown overboard.

Even today our largest military ships sail directly away from major storms.

Comment Re:Blamestorming (Score 1) 211

Last night I had a conversation with someone about kitchen knives, and then just this afternoon I had ANOTHER conversation with a different person about kitchen knives. Two conversations on kitchen knives within 24 hours! That has never happened before. Sure climate change is to blame for it.

There was a report in 1850 about a man who had a conversation about kitchen knives. Clearly we have detailed records of kitchen knife conversations going back hundreds of years!

Comment Re:Editors suck at their jobs (Score 1) 211

Bad assumption. There is storm data (and damn good data) going back to the 1850s.

Could be 2% of the storms. Could be 50% of the storms. Could be 98% of the storms.

Ok, now use your mighty math powers to compare storm frequency and intensity in 1850 with 2010.

You know what sailors did when there was a storm on the horizon in 1850? They sailed in the opposite fucking direction and sometimes outran the storm, and if they couldnt outrun the storm and it actually was a hurricane they fucking died right there in the ocean.

You know what sailors do today when there is a storm on the horizon in 2015? They still sail the opposite fucking direction.

No you ignorant twat, there really isnt fucking records. Scientists admit it. Why wont you?

Comment Re:Possible scenario. (Score 1) 211

We can easily compare frequencies and energy levels of events like storms to past measurements in order to see trends over time

80 years ago the only records for hurricanes was when they made landfall, and then only in the heavily populated areas of 1st world countries. If you were in a god damned ship you either sailed the opposite direction as the storm on the horizon or you fucking sank. "Captain, was it a hurricane?" .. "I don't know. I sailed away from it. I'm not fucking retarded."

We only started getting a respectable count of these storms after we started sending satellites up, about 50 years in total, and we still only get detailed reports (wind speeds, etc) on the ones that might hit populated areas.

Using your ignorant strategy, the spike in the number of hurricanes on record that began about 50 years ago is evidence of global warming instead of evidence of satellites.

Use your brain. Imagine it. 80 years ago most ships are still made of wood and are driven by sails. Even the largest ship ever built by that time was tiny by todays standards and would capsize in a hurricane with near certainty. And planes were still made of wood and driven by propellers. Even today our largest military warships, entire carrier battle groups, get the fuck out of the way of hurricanes because they dont want to fucking die. But seemingly in your fucking world detailed records of hurricanes go way back.

Ignorant fuck.

Comment Re: Skill and TCL in Design Automation (Score 1) 305

Please pardon the really bad autocorrect above. That's what I get for posting this with a mobile device. I was trying to say a lot of languages owe a big debt to TCL. Also in the case of PowerShell, its design philosophy of the same. In PowerShell, almost everything is a command (cmdlet), but they are compiled as and interface with a different underlying language (C#). That way you can script really easily with PowerShell at a high level, but the underlying code is much more robust and fast. And that was basically the TCL philosophy, albeit with C. TCL was the glue language you scripted with, but C was the language that did all the work, and did it fast.

Comment Re: Skill and TCL in Design Automation (Score 1) 305

TCL is a really important language with a lot of other languages with big debt to. It is not used as much anymore, but languages like PowerShell borrowed really heavily from it. PowerShell basic philosophy is that pretty much everything is a command line, and they all interface to an underlying, more robust language. In the case of PowerShell that is C#, but in the case of TCL that was C. TCL was designed to be a glue language, something you could easily script against but that could call underlying more performant native code. It still gets used for that today, in a great example of it is the f5 load balancing platform. TCL is the language of iRules, and you can write scripts against it that are calling native C functions and can modify any piece of code on the network at wire speed. F5 networking gear is extremely advanced, and you will find it in the heart of most large corporate networks. And it is still TCL that plays arguably one of the most important roles in that equipment. And don't forget about TK, which was the graphics platform that combined with TCL helped it to really take off. It still is one of the easier ways to make up a GUI. PS - there are now plenty of typical developer rumblings to replace TCL on f5 equipment with JavaScript, but here's hoping that never happens. TCL is much better suited to what it does, and the last thing we need is mission critical equipment that is constantly changing JavaScript frameworks every other week.

Comment Re:Connecting things to the internet. (Score 1) 135

Quite possible. It's just that at this point 'internet connected' allows for easier maintenance/updating.

Other options for *successful* internet connected items might be parking meters. Pay for your parking on your smart phone.

Probably not worth it - internet connected street lights. A light & motion sensor is enough for them.

Comment Batter prices. (Score 1) 114

Lithium battery technology needs much more sophisticated charge/discharge/monitoring controllers than lead-acid. There's a bit of way to go before domestic PV/battery controllers are up to the task.

From my review of the situation, it's more that they're different. Yes, you can get away with a dumber charger on lead-acid, but when you're doing domestic PV with a large battery array, you want a sophisticated charger anyways.

Same deal with LiIon, really. the minimum charger is a bit more complicated, but again, as the size of the battery increases so doesn't the sophistication of the charger to handle it. Tesla chargers, for example, are really fancy, but we're talking about a HUGE array here, capable of powering the average house for around 2 days.

As such, from what I've read, theres are 'smart' LiIon batteries that are capable of working with a dumb lead-acid charger and thus working fine - see LiIon replacements for car & motorcycle batteries that are drop-in replacements. They handle the safe charging aspects on their own.

But if you have a solar setup, you don't have a dumb charger, thus conflict emerges. So yeah, you'd have to change out the charger at that time. Though when I looked at solar last year, the battery controllers the store had were compatible with Lead-Acid, NiMH, and Lithium. You know your own system though.

And yes. If you have a system currently that's working, the last thing I'd do would be to suggest replacing it before it's EOL.

Just keep an open mind when replacement time does come around.

Comment Re:And who was the big believer in carbon credits? (Score 1) 148

On that basis you can't tax me. You need CAUSATION.

Ah, and it comes out. You're coal power. Gotcha. No, I don't need 'causation' to tax you, no more than Uncle Sam needs causation to tax my income.

On that basis you can't tax me. You need CAUSATION.

Let's see. We have studies that:
1. Show emissions from coal power plants. We know what they are, quantities, etc...
2. Show air samples in communities around said plants containing elevated amounts of said emissions.
3. Show elevated amounts of illness

At this point, yeah, it could still be considered correlation. However, that's not all
4. Laboratory tests of said emissions, in the amounts experienced by the communities, have shown that the lab animals exposed suffer higher rates of illness/death
5. Biological studies have even identified the mechanisms involved in creating many of the illnesses.

Face it dude, you're a tobacco exective saying that the increased incidences of lung cancer among smokers is 'only correlation'.

People that don't grasp the distinction between correlation and causation shouldn't cite statistics AT ALL.

Well, it's a good thing you don't cite any, now is it?

As to power plants being dangerous to workers etc... don't be obtuse. It makes you sound petty and quarrelsome which is not helping you.

I thought it was a valid arguing tactic going by your example.

As to internalizing costs, you cannot do that unless you can nail down causation on a case by case basis.

You may not be able to be precise about it, but you can get it in the ballpark.

As to 29%... we're talking about PM2.5 in San Francisco actually if you read the source. And the amount of air pollution in San Francisco is pretty fucking low.

Compared to China, yes. They still have problems with it.

Let me make this clear, you know there is arsenic in many natural water sources right? That's something we often use as RAT POISON.

There's also Uranium in my water. Do I need to point out why I don't need to worry about having a functioning nuclear reactor for a body anytime soon? Man, you assume all sorts of ignorance on my part. And then you go on and on and on about it...

Yes, dosage is incredibly important. But the point is - there's enough pollution from coal power plants, combined with other pollution sources, to cause serious negative health benefits. Remember how I mentioned taxing gasoline for it's pollution as well? You're ALL responsible.

As to the geo engineering... if you're not familiar with the proposed methods of geo engineering than you're not well read on climate change. Period.

And this matters why when my point was only tangently related to climate change? Again, reading your sources, these are not 'shovel ready' proposals.

The cost structure for these plans is well under a billion dollars for either one. And either would entirely negate the effect of global warming. Understand... ENTIRELY negate the warming. ALL of it.

If that was true, I'd expect a lot more scientists to be jumping on it.

Instead, from the articles it's made very clear that there remains a LOT of research left on the Sulfur Dioxide problem, and the second points out that it'd only be a partial solution, and reducing CO2 emissions would still be needed.

The carbon credit scheme will do nothing of the kind whilst costing trillions.

if you want the warming to stop, support a plan that will ACTUALLY work.

Which is all well and good when you realize that I never supported carbon credits. I viewed them as an over-complicated crock long before this thread.

And then take the MASSIVE savings and sink a portion of that into funding research for new technologies. Contrary to what you might think, funding for new technologies to replace coal etc are not actually that high.

At least you have 'might' in here. Because I agree that they're not that high. Massive savings, on the other hand, that's more debatable.

A straight up CO2 tax, on the other hand, would be bringing money in that could then be spent developing said replacement infrastructure, or even fund geo-engineering if that turned out to be cheaper.

We spend a lot of money on wind farms and solar farms but we don't spend anywhere near that kind of money on research into the technology that will actually get rid of coal.

Like nuclear power... For about the same price per watt of capacity, you can get three times or more kWh per year, due to the fact that nuclear can reach a 90% capacity factor, while solar/wind is lucky to hit 30%. Capacity factor being the ratio between actual power produced, divided by the theoretical maximum it could have produced if it ran at 100% the entire period.

As to conflating all subsidies as equal... *sigh*... please try to watch the fallacies. You seem to operate almost entirely in them and it makes it tedious to correct simple logical errors. There are small subsidies and there are fucking massive subsides. Saying "we subsidized something once so clearly all subsides no matter how massive are just the same thing."

Tedius? Well, I suppose carefully crafting a strawman to attack does get rather tedious. Reread what I said and add a hefty dose of pessimism to what I said. I wasn't saying that global warming subsidies aren't massive and corrupt. I'm saying that massive corrupt subsidies are a fact of life. Wool. Sugar. Citris. Automobiles. Planes. Corn. I was disagreeing with the 'contempt' part, not the corruption part.

Utter and complete nonsense.

Doesn't actually mean anything.

The point is as inconvienent to you politically and ideologically as it may be... is that the man you think you're sticking it to with the AGW rules... play directly into the man's hands. He gets to fuck over his competition by creating so much red tape and regulation that only the big companies can deal with it either because they have dedicated legal departments or because they can buy exemptions from congressman. And then the pork just flows and flows and flows. Is anyone scrutinizing the funding on these solar power plants or wind farms? Who gets the contracts, if whatever is being installed is being bidded out at a competitive rate?

...Didn't I suggest that you stop trying to think what I was thinking? Your rant also shows a simplistic view on how congressional corruption/pork/federal subsidies work.

If you don't know the tax payers get hosed on these projects more often than not... then let this be your wake up call. These programs are often as not given to campaign contributors, at marked up rates, and if you itemize what is actually being installed and do a cost analysis on what is being charged for it all... you'll find the numbers do not add up.

...When did I endorse solar/wind?

What is my solution for all that? I don't think solar and wind should be build in big centralized power projects. Instead, I think citizens should be given tax credits for installing solar panels and wind turbines on their own property.

They are. Though you pretty much have to be a farmer in order to install a wind turbine big enough to be economical. PV panels scale down really well. Turbines are better the bigger and higher they are.

Wind and solar are unique in that you can put them up almost anywhere and they're very defuse energy sources.

diffuse man, not defuse.

What I like about the defuse model is that it is hard for any one company to bribe a congressman to get a contract. Every individual panel buyer or wind mill buyer can buy a panel or a wind mill from any company they want.

Solyndra, man. Government pork to a company intended to sell panels to individual buyers. Like I said, your examples of pork are rather simplistic.

Okay, the way government subsidies work for solar/wind.
1. Individuals get extra tax credits/deductions installing
2. Businesses get extra deductions/credits for installing
3. Companies that produce solar/wind often get local subsidies in the form of reduced taxes(note: Very common outside of renewable energy companies as well).
4. Renewable energy companies get grants to develop stuff.
5. Renewable energy companies get things like loan guarantees from the fed, enabling them to borrow money, or at least borrow money at a lower interest rate. Cheap(to the government) when the company succeeds, expensive when it fails.

You don't actually see much where the government is paying for a specific project via a specific line item in a funding bill, especially at the federal level. What happens is that some business proposes putting up a wind/solar farm, and takes advantage of existing federal subsidies/credits for it.

And consider their tax dollars are currently being funneled to big companies to install these power stations. Why not stop issuing those contracts ENTIRELY and direct ALL of that money to subsidies for private solar and wind at the consumer level?

Because, as I just stated, said contracts don't actually exist? One can certainly argue about ending subsidies for 'large power plants' though. You'd just want to put in some wording so that businesses putting panels in on their roof still get the appropriate subsidies, as long as you still support subsidizing them.

The closes to the contracts you're implying, IE directly between the government and the installer, would be for projects involving putting solar panels and wind turbines up on government property. And such make a LOT of sense in some situations for the government.

For example, deployed locations. You haven't seen expensive power until you're looking at generators running on diesel delivered by convoy. Meanwhile, the camp has a massive amount of clear space simply to make targeting by mortar/rocket difficult. I figured out one deployment that, even figuring on air delivery of the panels, the payback would be 3 months on solar panels. Sure, they wouldn't work at night, but hey, the reduced number of convoys necessary would save 'several' lives a year.

Here you'll say "it isn't as efficient because the units used at the utility level produce a lot more power per dollar input"

Man, you're bad at guessing what I'd say. Now, as I said earlier, wind doesn't scale down that well(the wind is more consistent at higher altitudes, and bigger blades are more efficient), so solar PV is the primary residential install. Now yes, a power company can install PV 'cheaper' than consumers can, between bulk purchasing(vs retail), 'ideal' panel placement(as opposed to pre-existing roof angle), and automation. But the price point they're competing against is also different. They're competing at wholesale prices - IE the 2-4 cents a kWh baseload generators are making. Maybe a couple cents higher in competition with daytime peaking plants. Meanwhile, home solar is competing against retail electric prices - averaging 12 cents a kWh in the USA.

In much of the USA, if you have a suitable roof and are located far enough south, PV makes good sense.

... yes and no. The distribution system is not calculated in that... and i'm not talking about what any power has to deal with but specifically costs associated wtih dealing with solar and wind power introduced to the grid. They play merry hell with the grid because the power jumps around all over the fucking place.

...Not enough to really cause problems until they reach an OOM more penetration than they have in most of the country. Hawaii's being a good test bed in that respect though. See above where I talk about capacity factors otherwise. See earlier posts where I mention natural gas taking over from coal...

Beyond that, municipalities often exploit residents by jacking up power and water costs because they can't justify raising taxes. They'll jack up water or power costs and then redirect the money at program X or Y that had nothing to do with water or power.

That's amazingly difficult to do in most areas. For example, my power company is a cooperative, not a government body. Jacking their prices up nets the government nothing. In other areas they're outright commercial companies.

Generally speaking, the reason power & water costs are going up is that expanding capacity and meeting new government regulations is expensive. Such as the pollution controls on coal. Nitrate levels in water. The EPA keeps tightening the screws.

Still, you get hilarious things like the water company pushing conservation, which leads to less water being used, then, because less water is being used and the treatment plant costs about the same to run no matter how much water they treat, they end up having to raise rates because they're selling less water but have the same expenses.

Comment Netflix is Tanking Hard (Score 2) 179

Look at the new and leaving content for this month - it's almost all junk (with slightly more quality stuff leaving than coming).

Netflix is still showing me "New Episodes" for stuff I watched 6 months ago. A friend of mine said recently, "I spend more time looking for something to watch on Netflix than I do watching Netflix".

I just started requesting DVD's again from Netflix (send back the first one in two years yesterday) and my kids watch YouTube all the time anyway - I'm pretty sure there's no reason for me to keep the streaming service at this point. I wonder if I can cancel that separately. I still have 300 discs in my DVD queue and feel silly for trying to use the Internet instead of USPS for digital content.

Happiness is a hard disk.