jgreen10
Joined 16 years ago
Joined 16 years ago
Perhaps now that it's actually bad something might happen.
At this point, geo engineering is probably the safer option compared to letting the planet spiral into an uninhabitable waste land. Of course, it should be combined with cheap and abundant renewable/nuclear energy.
Now that things are bad, there might actually be popular support for this, though we may still have to wait for the current political class to retire.
In the end, what the world needs is an abundance of cheap energy without proportional carbon emissions. Everything else is secondary.
The expectation back then was that peer-to-peer would continue to evolve, especially in the area of distributed computing. Clouds did not exist yet, but projects like SETI@Home were having some success in terms of sharing compute resources. A peer-to-peer network could meter you for your consumption of compute resources through a lot of microtransactions in a virtual currency that avoided traditional banks or credit card providers.
Then came the first and least efficient implementation of peer-to-peer currency: Bitcoin, which did not sell the distributed computing capacity, but used it to do meaningless computations. It was clever, since up until that point the problem of zero-cost identity had been unaddressed, but appears to have few practical applications. It is surprising to me that people view it as some kind of alternative currency or store of value and send real currency to "trusted" exchanges. You deposit money just for the pleasure of doing a transaction? Yeh, sure, you don't need to agree on a global, trusted intermediary, but you still need to trust your exchange not to screw you over.
Ethereum is closer to the original ideas behind distributed computing and peer-to-peer currency, but the Internet has largely moved on from peer-to-peer networks. Today I can instantly get all the compute resources I need in a trustworthy, secure environment, and only pay for what I use. BitTorrent has also lost a lot much of its relevance with streaming services providing a greater level of convenience.
I believe an abundance of emission-free energy is about the only thing that can move the global economy to where it needs to be. Fossil fuels need to be out-competed with very cheap electricity. Once you achieve that, capitalism will ensure that all fossil fuel burning devices will gradually disappear. Other methods that try to fight capitalism (e.g. CO2 taxes) are ultimately losing battles, because the global political goodwill will never be there.
Solar is great, and cheap, until it's not. You need to cover vast areas of land in solar panels to power the whole country (incl. cars, freight, industry, ...), which is impractical and extremely costly, and still only works part of the day/year. It's an important part of the solution, but not the solution.
Nuclear is about the only thing that can provide continuous abundance at a reasonable cost, though we need new technologies.
For instance, the Netherlands had a trade surplus of $76 billion in 2017, but shows up as having a trade deficit.
France does not appear in the list of Germany's export partners, but it's actually number 2.
It's an irrational, unreasonable request, which makes it highly questionable as a legal ruling.
AGPL only requires open sourcing any modifications you make to the software when you give users direct access to a server running the software, which seems like something you would never want to do in case of a database.
You can use database servers running AGPL software in a closed source SaaS: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.en.html
However, it's hard to be sure. A discussion: https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/aerosols-are-so2-emissions-...