Wasn't there this whole defining thing for America? Something about taxation without representation, right? So the 18 year olds have to pay taxes on the wages they earn by working and therefore should be able to vote. The retired, however...

An exceptional piece of software in so many ways, created by a very special person. You are missed.

:wq!

Yeah, plus the cold war, pop and house music and the surge of widely available drugs. It's a wonder most of us Gen Xers even made it this far.

To summarise: use a terminal server system if you can, using a desktop for the end user that can be made to behave like windows (or another concept that works for your demography), and have the whole setup in a NixOS configuration that you manage in git.

I see that https://github.com/ltsp/ltsp is still going strong.

Regardless of the method, carbon capture is not going to work fast enough to make meaningfully change. The only realistic solution to keep earth from going runaway warming and becoming perhaps even another Venus, is to radically increase earth's albedo to a point where the energy balans goes from +2W/m² to -2W/m², using brightening agents like sea salt for instance. In the mean time more realistic methods to manage CO2 en especially also methane levels in the atmosphere can be devised for the longer term.

Alas, I'll have to learn to indicate the right level of cynicism more explicitly on here.

As cynical but slightly more in earnest: if voting rights were only given to those who can prove basic reasoning abilities, it might actually make a difference. Since there is no reliable way to prevent authorities from abusing such a criterium, I see no other option than to have no restrictions on any generic criterium. Perhapa a voting obligation would be more effective.

I'm also a fan of science fiction-like solutions but only in the "oh that would be so cool!" sense, not as a viable solution to the current problem of what could be a runaway greenhouse heating cycle that turns earth into "Venus the 2nd". Keep dreaming, though because what seemed like science fiction just decades ago is becoming reality today and as a future method to regulate earths temperature it seems at least worth a look.

"ING zorgt mede voor levensgevaarlijke situatie op de planeet, demonstranten gedemoniseerd uit winstoogmerk."

*) Take me to your dealer.

Ftfy

This is how I learn. Not conciously, unfortunately but now I know.

From now on, I want to be called Loretta.

Life moves pretty fast; if you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it!

Absolutely. Powered by solar or wind or what other green source is available.

From plan to production is not 7 years, just the building itself. Especially not now that cooling capabilities are disappearing (many of those French installations had to reduce output significantly due to the heat wave this year.) This will mean it will cost much longer to get these installations okayed and their usefulness is further limited.

Calling me an ecofacist also means this is the end of the line of this "discusssion". Have fun in your alternate reality.

Horizon for going into production of a NPP is at least a decade, more likely two. By that time storage techniques and renewable prduction will be able to cope handsomely and at a lower price, so yes, too late. And yes we are much too late in reducing carbon output (output is still growing) and capturing greenhouse gasses is miles away from being relevant to cooling the planet.

Influx reduction is our best bet and it will have to happen quickly or this planet is going to be hard to live on.

Nuclear is not the future or even the present.

All of them, on both sides of the "green spectrum" are either insane or ignoring reality.

Closing existing nuclear power plants is wasteful if they are still safe to run.

Creating new fission based power plants is useless because they will not be ready in time to make a bit of difference, separate from the fact that increasing surface water temperatures will render most of these units unusable/inefficient in the next decade or so.

Renewables+storage will be safer and at a much lower cost.

None of this will help save the "planet". Reduction of (the growth of) carbon emissions is insufficient to cool the planet down in any way shape or form to a degree that helps in time to prevent disaster/extinction.

Increasing earths albedo is the only method currently achievable to get from +2W/m² forcing to -2W in time to save at least something of our current habitat but those sort of literally world saving options is drowned out by a discussion about how big energy can wring more subsidies from the public coffers by promising that Nuclear will save the day and having "Green" proponents make the argument for them. Don't be fooled. Stop wasting public money on big, slow and ultimately wasteful projects just so energy companies can keep themselves alive.