So, half of Australia output is NOT caused by humans directly. I wonder if this increased tendency to burn (+ add to the Carbon - + make the planet incrementally hotter) in the hotter / dryer world has been factored into the Paris Accords in our carbon goals?

Obviously, the solution is to get rid of anything that burns. Burning it would be the quickest way of getting rid of it.

In 1984 I turned down a decent job as a phone administrator at Fidelity in favor of a programming job at startup (that lasted a year) working on an IBM System/36 and then System/38 which I thought was friggin awesome, even in comparison to the DEC VAX line, which was probably cooler. Needless to say, I would have to learn more on the job to make a career.. Microcomputers from Apple and "IBM Compatibles"; streaming off CDROM and compression strategies; The internet starting with a TCP/IP stack on my Quadra 840AV called DAVE, and from there everything since 1996.

In my 35 years, I put the knowledge horizon at 4 years. i.e. If you stop learning completely new technologies, you are useless within 4 years. Everything you know is obsolete and you are good for maintenance and a fixed association with the career kiss of death: legacy. That means that fully one quarter of all my time working had to be spent learning. And I was able to get this time as a contractor by going unpaid for 3 months a year.

Its obvious that profit motive (especially the 4 year investment cycle ideal for startups, and near term profits for the rest of the corporate world) would tend to want to hire only people who can drop in and perform from demonstrable recent success.. but what happens to companies banking on this approach when the event horizon ends up being much longer? Moreover, in my experience, the few who do aggressively learn on their own and advance their skills in their job have trouble finding promotion and have to move to other organizations at a higher salary to capitalize on their personal investment. After a full skill replacement 5 times, I am also losing the maniacal motivation needed to do it on my own as I have.

(Has anybody experienced a skill horizon other than 4 years?)

I agree. I assumed they had already gone 32 bit. ABOUT TIME EH??





lol.

How could it not affect people's psyche when it's all so personal?
e.g. Trump 2020. Make liberals cry again! What public policy crisis or initiative does this attempt to address? None that I can see.

I don't know, but I'd be willing to bet that if you look at who funded the research, you would find that Bradley Johnston, and/or the study at Dalhousie University, or both, were funded by some entity with a vested interest in the outcome: Livestock interests for cattle & pork.

Without knowing who funded the research, you can know nothing of its inherent bias.

Paraphrasing Mrs Reiner:
I'll have what Europe's having!

As is almost always the case, whenever I know some or all of the facts in a reported story, the reported story is inaccurate based on the writer's bias (which in this case, I generally share, when I don't know any facts.)

To say that Equifax may not have paid for its security mistakes to the satisfaction of many may well be true. They are, after all, still an operating credit bureau, and divine retribution did not rain down from above in any sense. However, to say Nothing Happened is patently false, given observable fact, at least to anybody who actually knows all the facts. I know that huge budgets have been assigned or re-allocated, and massive hiring redirections have been underway since the breach.

Full Disclosure: I do not work there, or in that business. I know people whom I trust complete who have been hired since, and who are fanatics about security. They got paid pretty well too!

AG Barr is in the prosecution business. I'm sure he thinks citizens should also waive their rights to arbitrary search and seizure as a condition of getting a driver's license or a passport. This is a bad idea from a consumer standpoint, and an even worse idea from a citizen standpoint. The fact that Obama sold the people down the river does not mean Democrats should support it now any more than Republicans should now that they have a trusted leader in office. It's not about trusting the leadership that implements the loss. It's about a freedom, once lost, being gone forever, regardless of who is in power now or later.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Abraham Lincoln

I'm all for boldly going where nobody has gone before and all that malarkey, but, as a matter of logic:

How can anybody really think that any truly inhospitable planet or moon (i.e. ANY planet or moon we know of, other than earth) will ever compare to earth itself, even at it's least hospitable? If all 100 people Mars can support for the next 100 years were talking to each other, they'd be looking up at the messed up earth and saying, "well shit! let's get our asses back there! It HAS to be better than this right? If only it were possible, but it just isn't. We're screwed!"

The fact that Bezos thinks investing in any place other than earth for the future of homo sapiens ignoramus indicates that he is not fit to be making those kind of decisions.. especially when, at his level, every decision for Mars is a decision against desalination, against alternative energy, against fixing greenhouse increases, or any number of solutions that could actually alter the equation on the future of earth.

What a cynical point of view, Jeff. You Suck!

The partner program gives resources to companies who develop products that interoperate with and bolster the ecosystem for Microsoft products. IUR gives these companies the right to use those dependent Microsoft products internally without requiring specific separate licenses for doing so. Removing this IUR benefit is going to be harmful to many development organizations, and seems almost like removing the whole purpose of the program in the first place. It will certainly force many of those developers to reconsider their overall architecture for their own survival. On the other hand, it will also make them more aware of the challenges their own customers face. Not only is their money to be paid, but the licenses structure is often byzantine and unintelligible to mere mortals.

Plus, for what its worth, I suspect the insider is including lost revenue in the cost, and that is not the same thing as a direct cost. I would often not pay if I had to for something I gladly use for free. But that's not germane to the discussion of ending IUR: completely asinine or just ill considered.

Unlike the isolation of personal devices today, the Walkman sported TWO headphone jack slots and a mic button to talk. Listening WITH somebody. Now there was a revolutionary idea! It was a great idea until Sony realized that it catered to freeloaders, and nipped that in the bud.

Also, it came with this insane demo tape that had a jet fly through your head. It was pretty sweet.

The 1.9 years is probably lost after reproductive activity has ended so the mutation will not affect transmission, although since the mutation benefits are active within that time frame, (protection from a disease that might otherwise prevent reproduction) it will be a good adaptation overall, regardless of its effect in an elderly persons life. But who knows what actual issues will emerge. CRIPR itself might not be a great adaptation.

I would suggest that Facebook employees, like their fearless and intrepid leader, are not morally bankrupt liars or anything of the sort. They are, at a median age of 28, simply young and unable to put their ideas into any context beyond utility and/or profit. Now they have all built a company with revenue streams dependent on questionable practices, and its not easy to choose any option that resembles "end our distasteful practices, and the revenue associated with them" and thereby keep all it's kids in their 7 figure Menlo Park, mountain View, or sick Palo Alto cribs.

For years, on this exact subject, I've been hearing, "Older people just don't get it!?"

They do, still, and they always did.

Some, though perhaps not all of the 2.7 million are also actively choosing what they want to watch rather than selecting from a scroll-able menu, and many awesome movies from more than a year ago are just not available online. In these cases, there's the disk option. You can get it delivered to your office, or you can go to Bend, Oregon. Mil Gracias Netflix.

I don't agree with your wording here, Herr Deutschlander, but I do agree with a fundamental premise you make, based on 40 years of driving and living in both the UK and in USA:

American cars are big and heavy and built and bought with the logic, "no matter what, (even if its my old grandmother's fault,) everyone in the car will be safe.. whatever happens!" This is how we choose/buy cars for our young, for our aged, for those we want to protect from themselves. It is the American Alter of curb weight. I never did get the whole SUV craze. I prefer my [sporty coupe.]

European cars by contrast (and maybe because fuel is so much more expensive) have until recently been smaller, with an emphasis on handling, braking, and performance. In Europe, driving is not a right but a privilege, and it must be earned. The build and buy logic is to buy the car which is safest in the hands of a competent driver. Rather than focus on safety when a driver screws up, focus on the best ability to stay out of trouble in the first place.

Of course there are knobheads who drive their US rolling tank, or UK boy racer, like they don't care whether they or anyone else lives or dies. Moreover, 40 years has seen traffic rise to a level unthinkable when I got my license, making silly bugger speeds increasingly problematic. But I've never been in an accident, and it's not because I drive within the absolute limits of the lowest common denominator. And when I rent American fleet cars, I drive them like a baby, secure in the knowledge that I could drive into a tree and not notice, but fearing it will happen through no fault of my own.