Already did. Now, get clued in: how much could you get for Virginia tobacco these days if it weren't sold overseas? Not enough to grow it.
Continuing to burn fossil fuels is stupid, this is why you need to seach everywhere, high and low, left and right, over and under for just one clue. Read the parent, for example.
Learn some manners and get a clue. We're not going to finish burning this stuff until it's not worth extracting. That can be when we're scraping
the bottom or much sooner. If it is sooner, the price has to go very low.
I'd like to see oil down to about $10/barrel. At that price, it would not be worth pumping it. We'd just leave it in the ground. Getting
that far out in front of the supply curve by reducing demand would be pretty hard to do. If we cut our demand in half (not so hard), OPEC would likely crumble,
but the lower price would encourage other countries to start using more. Seems to me, if we could muster that much dicipline, we'd also have to find
ways to discourage other countries from increasing demand. Any ideas?
Say what you are going to say, say it, then say what you've said. In each of these sections explain that you favor a particular choice and in
discussing the other choices you are just being informational. This way your role as advisor is always up front. Say it is OK to snooze on the
parts you are including for "fairness" or "balance" because the issues you're covering are really expert issues.
In this kind of situation you are providing technical advice, not technical information so have the advice be the thing said at the beginning, middle
and end while leaving the details to the middle.
I think you can learn most by asking for feedback once each decision is made. If it goes against your advice, find out why, it it goes with your advice,
find out why. In the first case you need to see if there were other considerations that weren't shared with you. If that is the case, in future you need
to ask for more information about the decision space before providing advice. That way you can address those considerations. In the second case, you need to find out if your advice was influential and how. This helps you know what is working. It could be that the question you are answering is not the question you were being asked because the questioner did not put the question in a way you could catch the first time through.
Finally, it is important to remember that seeking advice is not a commitment to take it. Be polite and thank people for taking the time to listen. Remember, repeat yourself. Hope this helps and thanks for asking.
You are probably right about the cost of inverters. The reason it is done with many in this case is that it simplifies installation, helps
with shading and makes adjusting the system size easy. These are all plusses for making a rental business go where that systems may need to
move from place to place more often than systems that are sold and part of the contract is to keep the systems tuned to the way people are using
electricity. I think you'll see panel costs quite a bit lower by the time you are ready to build.
Gotta love the Escort Wagon, but it wasn't where Ford made money, so you can't get it now and they are having a hard time moving their previous
money makers.
I think we are in agreement that trimming does not help much when one is starting
from zero. And, it is this much less than population changes that
contribute most to your very large number. This is why shifting off of fossil fuels is so important. Market forces may do a portion of this:
you say insurance is at the root of the big 3's problems. It could be that the US will move to a less complex system for health care that will
relieve this, and we can then look again at the foresight of putting development efforts towards fuel efficiency. Similarly, really large scale renewables
may prove less complex than mining and delivering coal in China, or with a carbon tax imposed on chinese exports, a portion of their power
supply will switch over because they'll want to hang onto their labor advantage. These are not easy problems. The industrialized countries
are in a better position to move on this now than elsewhere.
This is so well known, it is done as an experiment at the grade school level. Al Gore has produced a DVD that might help you. The example there is
a glass of water with an ice cube floating in it. When the cube melts the water level stays the same. The next example is a glass filled with ice
cubes over the brim and water, so that the ice is supported not by boyancy but by the bottom of the glass. When the ice melts, the glass overflows.
You should rent his DVD, it is called "An Inconvinient Truth" and it is available at most rental outlets. Ice that is supported by the Earth can
contribute to sea level rise, ice that is floating does not. You might also be interested to know that a large part of the sea level rise so far is not
from melting ice but rather from thermal expansion of the sea water itself.
Your mouth to God's ear.... But, I would say that the article has a use. For those not yet exposed to (what is a more polite word for?) deniers,
their arguments are disarmed ahead of time, which saves a step or two. There are two problems, 1) the small number of folks who are religious about denial, and 2) the huge amount of money available to promote their views. This helps a little in making the money less useful. --
Rent solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
We do have solar on very afordable terms: what you are paying now for electricity, but as a startup, the insurance issues are still up in
the air. Some agents are saying that our rental systems are fully covered by the homeowner's policy while others are not. It actually takes
a pretty big hail storm, the kind that breaks windshields, to damage a solar power system, but it will be a relief when we have some systems
installed and the insurance companies are getting more consistent. Right now State Farm says yes in some places and no in others. In cases
where the insurance company won't cover the system, their will be another option, just like with a rental car. You can find out more by
following the links at http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
The US may start to cut emissions rather soon. There are market forces: rising energy costs, that make efficiency look more and more attractive.
One CFL saves about $60 over seven years (pays for itself in 6 weeks), and insulation pays for itself pretty quickly too. The big 3 are having lots of trouble these days with their
product lines because companies that have concentrated on efficiency are starting to see the payoff in their investment. It is not too hard to get a 20% reduction in per capita energy use over 15 years much less 30. Rising fossil energy costs are also making room for more renewable energy leading to scale in this sector and lower prices for these. One interesting development is an improved method for refining solar grade silicon http://pesn.com/2007/05/02/9500469_RSI_Silicon_win s_MIT_contest/ that should lower material costs for panel fabrication down quite a bit in a short
time. Getting 30% energy conversion in thirty years is pretty simple.
It seems likely to me that the most industrialized countries are going to go this route, may are already on track to meet Kyoto. The question is,
will developing countries have the ability to make these conversions? There, efficiency does not have such a large impact because energy using technology
is still being adopted. The reliance on coal is pretty natural as well since they can cookie cutter their new plants. But, owing to the structure of Kyoto, there is little incentive to jump past coal even if it would cost less in the long run. China set itself back with its policies in the past
and is only beginning to find something that seems to work. They may be open to further improvement, or they may dig in fearing to mess with success.
This is really the coming issue with emissions reducing or not.
I do think 9/11 might have been stopped under Gore since the discontinuity seems to have been a distraction to efforts that were beginning to be
fruitful in January 01. But that is not really the point. Bay of Pigs might have been avoided on the same grounds. Nixon might have had better
advice from Eisenhower. You are thinking about personalities, but the problem is systematic. How could Clinton or Bush ever be viable candidates?
Because their only competition is from others who have to woe the same big money. They are the best of the worst, not the best of America. This
is why the expression "not a dimes worth" is apt. It's become all about the money, not the country.
I'd be with you that there is some kind of difference, but is it a big difference? Democrats voted for the war, the patriot act, more war, more patriot act and so on. It was a democrat who could have ordered a full evacuation, then provided transportation to those who didn't have any when Katrina was
coming. I'm not saying, and I don't think anyone has, that there is no difference, it is just that the two parties head down the wrong road together
so often, that the difference is not very important.
There are core ideas from both parties that are very important for the country, but both parties largely ignore their founding principles in the interest
of expediency. Campaign funding has a huge role in this because it preselects candidates ready to ignore principle so that the real strengths of the
parties are drained away before we even vote. If you send sheep to Congress, you just get a flock. Doesn't make any difference what color wool they have.
There are legitimate reasons for keeping some emails on a separate server and getting rid of them. You don't want a clever stratagy that you might use again
to be provided to the opponents for example. This is akin to trade secrets. There are also illegitimate reasons, such as attempting to cover up criminal activity. This would be criminal conspiracy. What this story seems to show is that civil rights violations may have taken place, and that prosecutors may have been let go for illegal reasons because there is a train of motive. At this point, reconstructing as much of the email as possible should be
a priority. Even finding out that hard drives of recipients of the known emails were wiped within a certain time frame would be valuable information.
Many of them must exist on the machines of some of the senders as receivers. Lot's of folks are considering writing books after they finish
government service and would preserve a record of their work. You just need to look more broadly.
No one may challenge my vote because I chucked a letter with the return address of a political party in the trash. This is not a sufficient basis for
a challenge. A viable challenge has to show actual ineligibility rather than this kind of sham. The standards for a challenge have been set much to low.
That the person made the effort to vote is strong evidence for their good faith.
Actually, it was a.org vrs.com mixup. The White House (.gov) is required to retain email. The email is missing because it was on a separate
channel (party controlled) that did have the inconvenience of automated retention.
There is a link at the top of the page to listen to (or watch) the interview. You still might not like the style or production quality but they
really do have to differ from written news.
The claim is that the emails were misaddressed; sent to georgewbush.org rather than georgewbush.com. Usually this should just bounce I think so
they must have been doing something extra if this is the case.
Slashdot Mirror
Already did. Now, get clued in: how much could you get for Virginia tobacco these days if it weren't sold overseas? Not enough to grow it.
Continuing to burn fossil fuels is stupid, this is why you need to seach everywhere, high and low, left and right, over and under for just one clue. Read the parent, for example.
Learn some manners and get a clue. We're not going to finish burning this stuff until it's not worth extracting. That can be when we're scraping the bottom or much sooner. If it is sooner, the price has to go very low.
I'd like to see oil down to about $10/barrel. At that price, it would not be worth pumping it. We'd just leave it in the ground. Getting that far out in front of the supply curve by reducing demand would be pretty hard to do. If we cut our demand in half (not so hard), OPEC would likely crumble, but the lower price would encourage other countries to start using more. Seems to me, if we could muster that much dicipline, we'd also have to find ways to discourage other countries from increasing demand. Any ideas?
Say what you are going to say, say it, then say what you've said. In each of these sections explain that you favor a particular choice and in discussing the other choices you are just being informational. This way your role as advisor is always up front. Say it is OK to snooze on the parts you are including for "fairness" or "balance" because the issues you're covering are really expert issues.
In this kind of situation you are providing technical advice, not technical information so have the advice be the thing said at the beginning, middle and end while leaving the details to the middle.
I think you can learn most by asking for feedback once each decision is made. If it goes against your advice, find out why, it it goes with your advice, find out why. In the first case you need to see if there were other considerations that weren't shared with you. If that is the case, in future you need to ask for more information about the decision space before providing advice. That way you can address those considerations. In the second case, you need to find out if your advice was influential and how. This helps you know what is working. It could be that the question you are answering is not the question you were being asked because the questioner did not put the question in a way you could catch the first time through.
Finally, it is important to remember that seeking advice is not a commitment to take it. Be polite and thank people for taking the time to listen. Remember, repeat yourself. Hope this helps and thanks for asking.
You are probably right about the cost of inverters. The reason it is done with many in this case is that it simplifies installation, helps with shading and makes adjusting the system size easy. These are all plusses for making a rental business go where that systems may need to move from place to place more often than systems that are sold and part of the contract is to keep the systems tuned to the way people are using electricity. I think you'll see panel costs quite a bit lower by the time you are ready to build.
Would you trust an encyclopedia that the creators wouldn't use? It is certainly cited there.
Gotta love the Escort Wagon, but it wasn't where Ford made money, so you can't get it now and they are having a hard time moving their previous money makers.
I think we are in agreement that trimming does not help much when one is starting from zero. And, it is this much less than population changes that contribute most to your very large number. This is why shifting off of fossil fuels is so important. Market forces may do a portion of this: you say insurance is at the root of the big 3's problems. It could be that the US will move to a less complex system for health care that will relieve this, and we can then look again at the foresight of putting development efforts towards fuel efficiency. Similarly, really large scale renewables may prove less complex than mining and delivering coal in China, or with a carbon tax imposed on chinese exports, a portion of their power supply will switch over because they'll want to hang onto their labor advantage. These are not easy problems. The industrialized countries are in a better position to move on this now than elsewhere.
This is so well known, it is done as an experiment at the grade school level. Al Gore has produced a DVD that might help you. The example there is a glass of water with an ice cube floating in it. When the cube melts the water level stays the same. The next example is a glass filled with ice cubes over the brim and water, so that the ice is supported not by boyancy but by the bottom of the glass. When the ice melts, the glass overflows. You should rent his DVD, it is called "An Inconvinient Truth" and it is available at most rental outlets. Ice that is supported by the Earth can contribute to sea level rise, ice that is floating does not. You might also be interested to know that a large part of the sea level rise so far is not from melting ice but rather from thermal expansion of the sea water itself.
Your mouth to God's ear.... But, I would say that the article has a use. For those not yet exposed to (what is a more polite word for?) deniers, their arguments are disarmed ahead of time, which saves a step or two. There are two problems, 1) the small number of folks who are religious about denial, and 2) the huge amount of money available to promote their views. This helps a little in making the money less useful.s -selling-solar.html
--
Rent solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
We do have solar on very afordable terms: what you are paying now for electricity, but as a startup, the insurance issues are still up in the air. Some agents are saying that our rental systems are fully covered by the homeowner's policy while others are not. It actually takes a pretty big hail storm, the kind that breaks windshields, to damage a solar power system, but it will be a relief when we have some systems installed and the insurance companies are getting more consistent. Right now State Farm says yes in some places and no in others. In cases where the insurance company won't cover the system, their will be another option, just like with a rental car. You can find out more by following the links at http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
The US may start to cut emissions rather soon. There are market forces: rising energy costs, that make efficiency look more and more attractive. One CFL saves about $60 over seven years (pays for itself in 6 weeks), and insulation pays for itself pretty quickly too. The big 3 are having lots of trouble these days with their product lines because companies that have concentrated on efficiency are starting to see the payoff in their investment. It is not too hard to get a 20% reduction in per capita energy use over 15 years much less 30. Rising fossil energy costs are also making room for more renewable energy leading to scale in this sector and lower prices for these. One interesting development is an improved method for refining solar grade silicon http://pesn.com/2007/05/02/9500469_RSI_Silicon_win s_MIT_contest/ that should lower material costs for panel fabrication down quite a bit in a short
time. Getting 30% energy conversion in thirty years is pretty simple.
/ .s -selling-solar.html
It seems likely to me that the most industrialized countries are going to go this route, may are already on track to meet Kyoto. The question is, will developing countries have the ability to make these conversions? There, efficiency does not have such a large impact because energy using technology is still being adopted. The reliance on coal is pretty natural as well since they can cookie cutter their new plants. But, owing to the structure of Kyoto, there is little incentive to jump past coal even if it would cost less in the long run. China set itself back with its policies in the past and is only beginning to find something that seems to work. They may be open to further improvement, or they may dig in fearing to mess with success. This is really the coming issue with emissions reducing or not.
Reducing concentrations does not happen without our active intervention. Some folks are thinking about this: http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/CO2hoover
--
Rent solar power; utility competitive rates: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Are you saying that they knew Iraq was not a threat but voted for war because it was what America wanted?
This not actually in the Constitution but rather in the US Code somewhere.
I do think 9/11 might have been stopped under Gore since the discontinuity seems to have been a distraction to efforts that were beginning to be fruitful in January 01. But that is not really the point. Bay of Pigs might have been avoided on the same grounds. Nixon might have had better advice from Eisenhower. You are thinking about personalities, but the problem is systematic. How could Clinton or Bush ever be viable candidates? Because their only competition is from others who have to woe the same big money. They are the best of the worst, not the best of America. This is why the expression "not a dimes worth" is apt. It's become all about the money, not the country.
I'd be with you that there is some kind of difference, but is it a big difference? Democrats voted for the war, the patriot act, more war, more patriot act and so on. It was a democrat who could have ordered a full evacuation, then provided transportation to those who didn't have any when Katrina was coming. I'm not saying, and I don't think anyone has, that there is no difference, it is just that the two parties head down the wrong road together so often, that the difference is not very important.
There are core ideas from both parties that are very important for the country, but both parties largely ignore their founding principles in the interest of expediency. Campaign funding has a huge role in this because it preselects candidates ready to ignore principle so that the real strengths of the parties are drained away before we even vote. If you send sheep to Congress, you just get a flock. Doesn't make any difference what color wool they have.
The office of AG was established by Congress in 1789 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1789 along with the district attorney offices.
The Constitution is not so detailed.
This one is interesting. The interview says Iglesias is preparing a lawsuit on this (not in the transcript; about 20 min into the segement http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2007 /may/audio/dn20070514.ra&proto=rtsp&start=9:17). Persumably he could be reistated if he won. This
may be the first claim of this sort against the President.
There are legitimate reasons for keeping some emails on a separate server and getting rid of them. You don't want a clever stratagy that you might use again to be provided to the opponents for example. This is akin to trade secrets. There are also illegitimate reasons, such as attempting to cover up criminal activity. This would be criminal conspiracy. What this story seems to show is that civil rights violations may have taken place, and that prosecutors may have been let go for illegal reasons because there is a train of motive. At this point, reconstructing as much of the email as possible should be a priority. Even finding out that hard drives of recipients of the known emails were wiped within a certain time frame would be valuable information.
Many of them must exist on the machines of some of the senders as receivers. Lot's of folks are considering writing books after they finish government service and would preserve a record of their work. You just need to look more broadly.
No one may challenge my vote because I chucked a letter with the return address of a political party in the trash. This is not a sufficient basis for a challenge. A viable challenge has to show actual ineligibility rather than this kind of sham. The standards for a challenge have been set much to low. That the person made the effort to vote is strong evidence for their good faith.
You can not fire a prosecutor to end an investigation. This is obstruction of justice and it could be what happened in California. Even pomoting a prosecutor http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/ a/2006/01/27/MNGCNGU1J01.DTL can look suspicious.
c utors.html.
You'll notice that some Republicans are taking this issue seriously:
''It is hard to see how the Department of Justice can function and perform its important duties with Mr. Gonzales remaining where he is,'' said Specter, R-Pa. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Fired-Prose
Republicans may be empty headed stooges, but they know your talking points are incorrect.
Actually, it was a .org vrs .com mixup. The White House (.gov) is required to retain email. The email is missing because it was on a separate
channel (party controlled) that did have the inconvenience of automated retention.
There is a link at the top of the page to listen to (or watch) the interview. You still might not like the style or production quality but they really do have to differ from written news.
I find that the lag between coverage on DN! and the larger media is usually about six weeks. Slashdot does not count.
The claim is that the emails were misaddressed; sent to georgewbush.org rather than georgewbush.com. Usually this should just bounce I think so they must have been doing something extra if this is the case.