No, refurbished drives do NOT mean the drive failed. It means someone returned the drive, and the thing tested good, or that someone returned a computer that they parted out, and the hard drive tested good. Bad hard drives are VERY rarely repaired, and only if it is a very easy, cheap and quick fix, and I can't think of any such repair except maybe unbend a pin or put the jumper on correctly, and SATA drives don't have either of those issues. They simply don't cost enough to justify repair.
Everything else Microsoft makes is pretty crap? Your examples are Windows (7 I presume) and Microsoft Office I'd have to disagree with you about, because I haven't found a better alternative. Windows 7 I find on par with OS X Lion, either can be better than the other depending on what you are doing. And Microsoft Office is tons better than any alternative I know of.
Just install Launcher Pro Plus, and you won't have to deal with the Sense UI anymore. I did it on my HTC Sensation. It works great and runs a bit quicker now. This is the silliest reason ever to avoid buying HTC phones, as you can choose to not use the Sense UI anytime you want to switch to something else.
It would be helpful to know what the budget for the lab is, how many workstations are they hoping to accommodate, and what the purpose for the lab would be. Without that information, its hard to give any useful suggestions. I recommend LED lighting, as it is dimmable and easy on the eyes, but also saves electricity.
In Chicago,
If you don't enter the intersection and wait until the oncoming traffic is stopped before you take your left turn, you will never make a left turn at all. It is accepted practice for 3 cars to take a left turn after oncoming traffic is stopped, at least around here. I don't understand why this bothers anybody.
And the things you mentioned demonstrate why you don't need this law on the books. They were already violating any number of laws when you noticed they were talking on the phone. Adding another law that isn't going to be enforced isn't really the answer, in my opinion.
The difference between cell phone useage and drunk driving, is that at any time I choose to set down the phone and give driving my full attention, I can. I can't do that while drunk. I have been able to combine years of cell phone and car driving without a single incident. I don't see what the difference is between that and talking to someone in the phone with you. I use my phone as my GPS as well. I see this as yet another government intrusion. Texting while driving is silly. But hands-free phone useage? I don't see why that should be banned. The vast majority can accomplish that without any issue whatsoever. And for me, phone useage adds to my quality of life. My wife can call me for directions, I can help people get to my house, I can ask my wife which store I need to get to. Its a huge convenience. And I think its safer to call as your driving than to pull over and attempt a merge back onto the highway. Especially in heavier traffic.
I'm shocked that all these slashdot poster are going on and on about how cell phone use should be banned. I'm sure almost every single poster does it on a regular basis.
And this is why I go to slashdot. It brings a smile to my face that I find things I don't expect to find, and in a thread with seemingly one bias, opposing views are put there on equal footing for all to see. Thanks for posting!
The problem is "occupying wall-street" is meaning so many different things it is the same as meaning nothing. The reason I was quick and severe with my attack is that when someone is taking the time to protest, one would assume they should spell out what they are protesting and explain what they feel the better alternative is. I, myself, am not protesting or occupying wall street. The reason is I don't know really what the movement stands for, and I worry their efforts will be subverted by more politically savvy people.
When you are concerned about companies influencing government too much, how are you solving these problems by putting all of the power of a sector in the hands of the government (education, health care, sustainable energy)? It sounds to me like you are going to get way more of the problem you are protesting by achieving the aims you are looking for.
I think you are naive in thinking your aims are not going to be subverted by, say, public sector unions, or some big healthcare business. I also think you haven't really thought through what your goals will actually bring you in the real world. Are we going to fund sustainable energy like we funded Solyndra? That is having the government pick a winner, and destabilizing the market you want to promote. I don't want the government pissing away my money like that, and wall street (what you protest) does a better job of funding winning technologies. When my money goes to the Federal instead of state government, who do I hold accountable for my school? What difference will a cabinet secretary "dedicated to the quality of life and political representation of the citizen" make? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. Don't we have the house of representatives and senate for that? So now, instead lets have our president decide on some guy to represent us instead of our own votes? Why not just never vote and let the political class make all of our decisions?
The more I hear the specifics of what you want to accomplish, the more I discover although I am unsatisfied with politics and wall street, what you want to do will make nothing better. That is why the specifics are so important.
1. End / severely limit corporate spending in politics.
I am all for this. I don't see why anyone who is not an individual should be able to donate to politics.
2. Not-for-profit healthcare. I didn't say free, I said not-for-profit.
There could be severe problems tied to this, and you may want to rethink your position. When you take profit motives out of a sector, you limit development and improvement of it. The best minds go to where they can improve their lives the most. So if someone finds a way to treat cancer twice as well for half the price, but they have no way of profiting from it, why should they take the risk of trying to get their treatment approved and used? You would see healthcare quality go down or so many loopholes that the legislation would be meaningless here.
3. Corporate executive responsibility reform - make CEOs and their ilk personally responsible for their decisions.
You need to further explain what you mean by this. If a CEO is not doing anything illegal, what are you wanting them to be personally responsible for? Are you simply meaning they should be paid through stock options and not by money?
4. Extremely simplified tax code with no loop holes.
I whole-heartedly agree. A flat tax would be great. It would make everyone think equally about whether government programs were a good idea or not. Of course this is exactly why the tax code probably would not pass.
5. Honest to goodness real welfare reform. No more handouts for people not interested in contributing to society.
I agree with this as well. But the problem is with how you implement this, in my opinion, rather than just the sentiment that welfare needs to be reformed. And what about subsidies, medicare, medicaid and Social Security? Why just one part of it and not all? How do we reform all government subsidies and handouts in a way that is fair, compassionate but also realistic?
I went down to Zuccotti Park to protest yesterday and it was really inspiring. Considering how screwed up our political system is right now, I think what it really takes to raise awareness is dedication and bravery rather than carefully planned bullet points. Sure, to the average IT guy there are new hairstyles, clothing styles, odors, financial backgrounds, employment statuses etc. represented, but if you want homogeneity you can go to North Korea, and besides, you can find something to criticize about ANY large group of people. What these protesters are doing should be celebrated, and everyone who thinks our government needs to stop weighting decisions by dollars needs to join. The Wall Street protests could easily be ten times the size, and you can always say "no one will listen to them anyway" but at some point you must have your say in whatever way you can. This is a good way.
What I find hilarious, but also pathetic, about your post is the only thing you say is that you protested. You consider yourself dedicated and brave and think you have helped raise "awareness". Yet you haven't really specified what you are protesting or what you want to change except in the most generic and vague of terms. The only thing I can ascertain is you think the political system is screwed up (a common complaint going back to the beginning of documented history) and that our "government needs to stop weighting decisions by dollars". You haven't raised anyone's awareness by even the most remote speck, and I wonder if you are even aware of what you want except some romantic "be dedicated and brave" fiction you have in your head.
You are the reason everyone makes fun of these protesters. Someone with real political aims is going to take you and a bunch of like-minded friends of yours and use them to his or her own ends, and the rest of us are going to have to deal with the fallout. You are the people's revolution of China, the Hitler's Youth Brigade, the Iranian Revolutionary, the Stalinist of our day and time. I can only hope you get yourself educated and figure life soon.
I'll let slashdot keep the meme's if they can get preview to go quicker, and allow the comment system to recognize formatting instead of requiring html codes. At one time it was cool, but now it is just inefficient.
Any one who uses the phrase "you insensitive clod" should have all mod points confiscated, and then be burned on a stake. That alone would make Slashdot 10% better.
And why does preview take a minute to happen? (added after I tried to preview this comment) And why do I have to add html codes to get slashdot to recognize when I am spacing my comments with an enter key? Its inefficient and dumb to have the system be THAT backward.
Space X is developing the falcon heavy, ( The link. ) Why not use that instead. It lifts 53 metric tons for only $80-125 million a pop. Sure, the payload is a lot less, but the cost is 1/10 of what Nasa is thinking about. And those are hard numbers, not NASA will go over-budget numbers. I suppose the one drawback is in scenarios where you want to send a vehicle up there all in one piece.
I like the Mazda 5 minivan. Its not the most fuel efficient, and definitely not the most powerful minvan. But you can squeeze 7 people in it, and it gets 22/28 EPA mileage, which isn't bad for what you can haul around in it. There are higher mileage vehicles that haul around only 5 people, but you can fit 5 people and their stuff in the Mazda 5, or haul up to 7 (take 2 friends or grandparents or whatever along with the fam). There isn't a hybrid vehicle that can beat it for what it does at that mileage and price.
While on the face of it you could say this, the perception of people is that a file on a computer is more easily altered than something physical they possess. And when some hacker finds a way to forge digital signatures, it will be easier to forge digital things than hard copies.
Its harder to edit or photoshop a printed document. The printed document is seen as more unchangeable than an electronic one. You can verify a printed document has signatures that were actually signed and dated by a person. Basically it is a better way to verify a contract than an electronic document.
You can actually fit a lot more info in if you make some noise in the photo. You can take a photo, add artificial noise that is actually data you are trying to send and embed that in the photo. Looks like a poorly taken photo, but the info goes just fine.
Ummm, you need to check your chemistry. The standard octane molecule has 8 carbon atoms and 18 hydrogen atoms. so, for every 4 C02 molecules produced by burning it, you get 9 h20 molecules. So that water vapor is going into the air right now. In fact, our world is covered in water which gives off water vapor all over the place. We have so much water vapor in the air, when the temperature cools, we often get precipitation! We may have to drain our oceans to prevent global warming.
I also love how you evaluate every technology in terms of everything except rational real-world usage and manufacturing.
That is always the rub, isn't it. No one liked Iraq, No one liked the Taliban, Everyone agrees that its not a good idea to run unlimited deficits. The question is what you do about it then. Do you go to war? Do you try diplomacy? Do you raise taxes? Do you cut programs? That's where people stop agreeing.
I'm pretty sure most people agree the climate is changing. To what extent is C02 to blame? We don't know for sure, lets say its 100% responsible: If the biggest thing is that agriculture is changed in Kenya and migratory patterns change for some birds, and we have different trees where they didn't used to be, what do you want me to do about it? I'm not going to do much. The problem is when people advocate over-reactions in response to a problem no one is affected by yet, you won't get a lot of movement on an issue.
This is why we won't get anywhere in fighting AGW, even the Democrats really only pay lip-service to changing things in any real way. There is no political will to do the changes we are being told we should do. To change that they need reliable, proveable computer models that are predictive for future situations and not just historical data, at least in my opinion.
I'm not wanting to deny global warming. But to significantly change my lifestyle, you have to make a very strong case. The theoretical computer models are really flimsy right now. You say the science is more or less settled? What will be the average temperatures next year? By how much will they go up or down? What will be the average temperatures in 5 years? What will the sea levels be next year? What will they be in 5 years? No one really knows. This is a big problem if you are trying to convince a lot of people to trust everything you say about AGW.
As far as I'm concerned, it seems to be a lot easier to mitigate the effects of AGW, whatever they may be instead of trying to reverse them. Every prediction about AGW has been sensationalized and overblown. Until they get the consensus of scientists agreeing and able to predict with reasonable accuracy what will be happening in the future, I won't change what I do.
For example: right now, if the weatherman says there will be rain 7-8 days out I won't change my plans, Around Chicago, they have a reasonable chance of being wrong. If 2 days out they say rain, I change my plans. They are reliably right. I can't find accurate predictions for climate a year out yet. So why should I change my plans?
Those of you that say there are accurate models out there, give me the 1 year and 5 year predictions right now. We can refer back to your predictions in 1 and 5 years and see how accurate they are. Every time I say this in a AGW thread, I never get any takers. I wonder why that is.
The arguments that retooling is hard, just doesn't make it. Planned retooling is now designed into the manufacturing process. The U.S. helped develop the the Japanese manufacturing base by ignoring Demming. The Japanese were known for poor quality, so even with their lower labor rates. The Japanese improve their quality by following Demming and eventually overtook U.S. manufacturing and steel production. The remaining U.S. industries learned to focus on statistically analysis integrated quality control, and designed retooling became part of the process. So what drives the decision to outsource: 1) lower environmental standards, 2) lower overall employee costs, 3) tax benefits, 4) economic stability.
I think the underlying article hits the problem straight on. These economic factors are enticing from a cost accounting perspective, but not from a competitive one. Eventually, the knowledge is transferred to the low cost producers and they no longer need the costly U.S. managers to drive the business. We see that now with the rise of Haier and Chinese manufacturers who are beginning to dominate the lower end market. Eventually, they will displace the high margin businesses.
The U.S. main advantage in the past has been easy access to capital via efficient markets. With the current crisis and the idiotic standoff over debt, these markets may give rise to competing capital markets in SE Asia. The Chinese are flush with cash and it won't be long before they start to bypass the Western capital markets.
So what do we do? First, stop letting corporations drive the political agenda, because their short term focus is killing our industry. If we changed our focus to research that will enable lower cost production even with high labor rates, we can pull back manufacturing. This will have to be done at a grass roots level, because Wall Street will not invest in this kind of retooling when they can invest in companies that outsource. This means that we need to stop electing corrupt corporate lackies and uneducated religious nutcases, and change the rules so we encourage companies to invest here. Here a though, remove ALL corporate loopholes, and offer tax incentives only to those companies that in-source production and service jobs. Offer tax breaks to companies who invest in basic research programs that will innovate product and keep the technology here. This incentive can extend to University research which is most corporate funded anyway.
If you believe our problems stem from big government and the fear of socialism, then you are an idiot. Socialism is beating the f..king pants off of us right now, so that can't be the main issue. We as citizens must drive the political agenda and encourage Wall Street to invest in companies who develop our local economies. Otherwise, start learning Chinese because they are destined to be your overlords.
It isn't Unions, socialism, or big government that is killing us. It is the short term thinking of Wall Street. Once Wall Street was temporarily taken out of the picture at GM where they perpetuated a management culture that was adverse to change, the company was able to shed its high cost assets and return to profitability. In essence, it took government action to force the correct change in direction.
I don't think you really understand the problem, and as such I really don't see how your solutions have any chance of making it. When you create your boogeymen (Wall Street, uneducated religious nutcases, corrupt corporate lackies) and your panacea (close loopholes, limit tax breaks to a few scenarios, keep technology here) and save your sacred cows from scrutiny (big government, unions, socialism, etc.), I just don't feel you have anything meaningful to contribute to the conversation. Although you will preach to the choir who agrees with you judging by your "Insightful" rating.
In the real world there can be missteps by government, business, unions and investment systems, and there can be room for improvement all around.
IBM is incredibly great at these predictions, but not for the reasons you might think. Statements like this are meant to get attention and make people think about purchasing things from the people making the prediction. When people talk about the statement, it is successful. 10 years from now, when the statement is wrong, it has no negative effect on the company, and short term it has a positive one.
If you want these statement to actually predict reality, just remember you are asking them to do something they were never meant to do.
Slashdot Mirror
No, refurbished drives do NOT mean the drive failed. It means someone returned the drive, and the thing tested good, or that someone returned a computer that they parted out, and the hard drive tested good. Bad hard drives are VERY rarely repaired, and only if it is a very easy, cheap and quick fix, and I can't think of any such repair except maybe unbend a pin or put the jumper on correctly, and SATA drives don't have either of those issues. They simply don't cost enough to justify repair.
Everything else Microsoft makes is pretty crap? Your examples are Windows (7 I presume) and Microsoft Office I'd have to disagree with you about, because I haven't found a better alternative. Windows 7 I find on par with OS X Lion, either can be better than the other depending on what you are doing. And Microsoft Office is tons better than any alternative I know of.
Just install Launcher Pro Plus, and you won't have to deal with the Sense UI anymore. I did it on my HTC Sensation. It works great and runs a bit quicker now. This is the silliest reason ever to avoid buying HTC phones, as you can choose to not use the Sense UI anytime you want to switch to something else.
It would be helpful to know what the budget for the lab is, how many workstations are they hoping to accommodate, and what the purpose for the lab would be. Without that information, its hard to give any useful suggestions. I recommend LED lighting, as it is dimmable and easy on the eyes, but also saves electricity.
In Chicago, If you don't enter the intersection and wait until the oncoming traffic is stopped before you take your left turn, you will never make a left turn at all. It is accepted practice for 3 cars to take a left turn after oncoming traffic is stopped, at least around here. I don't understand why this bothers anybody.
And the things you mentioned demonstrate why you don't need this law on the books. They were already violating any number of laws when you noticed they were talking on the phone. Adding another law that isn't going to be enforced isn't really the answer, in my opinion.
The difference between cell phone useage and drunk driving, is that at any time I choose to set down the phone and give driving my full attention, I can. I can't do that while drunk. I have been able to combine years of cell phone and car driving without a single incident. I don't see what the difference is between that and talking to someone in the phone with you. I use my phone as my GPS as well. I see this as yet another government intrusion. Texting while driving is silly. But hands-free phone useage? I don't see why that should be banned. The vast majority can accomplish that without any issue whatsoever. And for me, phone useage adds to my quality of life. My wife can call me for directions, I can help people get to my house, I can ask my wife which store I need to get to. Its a huge convenience. And I think its safer to call as your driving than to pull over and attempt a merge back onto the highway. Especially in heavier traffic.
I'm shocked that all these slashdot poster are going on and on about how cell phone use should be banned. I'm sure almost every single poster does it on a regular basis.
We also give aid to Pakistan and India. And Pakistan and India openly admit to having nuclear weapons.
And this is why I go to slashdot. It brings a smile to my face that I find things I don't expect to find, and in a thread with seemingly one bias, opposing views are put there on equal footing for all to see. Thanks for posting!
The problem is "occupying wall-street" is meaning so many different things it is the same as meaning nothing. The reason I was quick and severe with my attack is that when someone is taking the time to protest, one would assume they should spell out what they are protesting and explain what they feel the better alternative is. I, myself, am not protesting or occupying wall street. The reason is I don't know really what the movement stands for, and I worry their efforts will be subverted by more politically savvy people.
When you are concerned about companies influencing government too much, how are you solving these problems by putting all of the power of a sector in the hands of the government (education, health care, sustainable energy)? It sounds to me like you are going to get way more of the problem you are protesting by achieving the aims you are looking for.
I think you are naive in thinking your aims are not going to be subverted by, say, public sector unions, or some big healthcare business. I also think you haven't really thought through what your goals will actually bring you in the real world. Are we going to fund sustainable energy like we funded Solyndra? That is having the government pick a winner, and destabilizing the market you want to promote. I don't want the government pissing away my money like that, and wall street (what you protest) does a better job of funding winning technologies. When my money goes to the Federal instead of state government, who do I hold accountable for my school? What difference will a cabinet secretary "dedicated to the quality of life and political representation of the citizen" make? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. Don't we have the house of representatives and senate for that? So now, instead lets have our president decide on some guy to represent us instead of our own votes? Why not just never vote and let the political class make all of our decisions?
The more I hear the specifics of what you want to accomplish, the more I discover although I am unsatisfied with politics and wall street, what you want to do will make nothing better. That is why the specifics are so important.
1. End / severely limit corporate spending in politics.
I am all for this. I don't see why anyone who is not an individual should be able to donate to politics.
2. Not-for-profit healthcare. I didn't say free, I said not-for-profit.
There could be severe problems tied to this, and you may want to rethink your position. When you take profit motives out of a sector, you limit development and improvement of it. The best minds go to where they can improve their lives the most. So if someone finds a way to treat cancer twice as well for half the price, but they have no way of profiting from it, why should they take the risk of trying to get their treatment approved and used? You would see healthcare quality go down or so many loopholes that the legislation would be meaningless here.
3. Corporate executive responsibility reform - make CEOs and their ilk personally responsible for their decisions.
You need to further explain what you mean by this. If a CEO is not doing anything illegal, what are you wanting them to be personally responsible for? Are you simply meaning they should be paid through stock options and not by money?
4. Extremely simplified tax code with no loop holes.
I whole-heartedly agree. A flat tax would be great. It would make everyone think equally about whether government programs were a good idea or not. Of course this is exactly why the tax code probably would not pass.
5. Honest to goodness real welfare reform. No more handouts for people not interested in contributing to society.
I agree with this as well. But the problem is with how you implement this, in my opinion, rather than just the sentiment that welfare needs to be reformed. And what about subsidies, medicare, medicaid and Social Security? Why just one part of it and not all? How do we reform all government subsidies and handouts in a way that is fair, compassionate but also realistic?
I went down to Zuccotti Park to protest yesterday and it was really inspiring. Considering how screwed up our political system is right now, I think what it really takes to raise awareness is dedication and bravery rather than carefully planned bullet points. Sure, to the average IT guy there are new hairstyles, clothing styles, odors, financial backgrounds, employment statuses etc. represented, but if you want homogeneity you can go to North Korea, and besides, you can find something to criticize about ANY large group of people. What these protesters are doing should be celebrated, and everyone who thinks our government needs to stop weighting decisions by dollars needs to join. The Wall Street protests could easily be ten times the size, and you can always say "no one will listen to them anyway" but at some point you must have your say in whatever way you can. This is a good way.
What I find hilarious, but also pathetic, about your post is the only thing you say is that you protested. You consider yourself dedicated and brave and think you have helped raise "awareness". Yet you haven't really specified what you are protesting or what you want to change except in the most generic and vague of terms. The only thing I can ascertain is you think the political system is screwed up (a common complaint going back to the beginning of documented history) and that our "government needs to stop weighting decisions by dollars". You haven't raised anyone's awareness by even the most remote speck, and I wonder if you are even aware of what you want except some romantic "be dedicated and brave" fiction you have in your head.
You are the reason everyone makes fun of these protesters. Someone with real political aims is going to take you and a bunch of like-minded friends of yours and use them to his or her own ends, and the rest of us are going to have to deal with the fallout. You are the people's revolution of China, the Hitler's Youth Brigade, the Iranian Revolutionary, the Stalinist of our day and time. I can only hope you get yourself educated and figure life soon.
I'll let slashdot keep the meme's if they can get preview to go quicker, and allow the comment system to recognize formatting instead of requiring html codes. At one time it was cool, but now it is just inefficient.
Any one who uses the phrase "you insensitive clod" should have all mod points confiscated, and then be burned on a stake. That alone would make Slashdot 10% better.
And why does preview take a minute to happen? (added after I tried to preview this comment) And why do I have to add html codes to get slashdot to recognize when I am spacing my comments with an enter key? Its inefficient and dumb to have the system be THAT backward.
Thanks for you well-thought out response! You make a number of good points I hadn't thought about.
Space X is developing the falcon heavy, ( The link. ) Why not use that instead. It lifts 53 metric tons for only $80-125 million a pop. Sure, the payload is a lot less, but the cost is 1/10 of what Nasa is thinking about. And those are hard numbers, not NASA will go over-budget numbers. I suppose the one drawback is in scenarios where you want to send a vehicle up there all in one piece.
I like the Mazda 5 minivan. Its not the most fuel efficient, and definitely not the most powerful minvan. But you can squeeze 7 people in it, and it gets 22/28 EPA mileage, which isn't bad for what you can haul around in it. There are higher mileage vehicles that haul around only 5 people, but you can fit 5 people and their stuff in the Mazda 5, or haul up to 7 (take 2 friends or grandparents or whatever along with the fam). There isn't a hybrid vehicle that can beat it for what it does at that mileage and price.
While on the face of it you could say this, the perception of people is that a file on a computer is more easily altered than something physical they possess. And when some hacker finds a way to forge digital signatures, it will be easier to forge digital things than hard copies.
Its harder to edit or photoshop a printed document. The printed document is seen as more unchangeable than an electronic one. You can verify a printed document has signatures that were actually signed and dated by a person. Basically it is a better way to verify a contract than an electronic document.
You can actually fit a lot more info in if you make some noise in the photo. You can take a photo, add artificial noise that is actually data you are trying to send and embed that in the photo. Looks like a poorly taken photo, but the info goes just fine.
Ummm, you need to check your chemistry. The standard octane molecule has 8 carbon atoms and 18 hydrogen atoms. so, for every 4 C02 molecules produced by burning it, you get 9 h20 molecules. So that water vapor is going into the air right now. In fact, our world is covered in water which gives off water vapor all over the place. We have so much water vapor in the air, when the temperature cools, we often get precipitation! We may have to drain our oceans to prevent global warming.
I also love how you evaluate every technology in terms of everything except rational real-world usage and manufacturing.
That is always the rub, isn't it. No one liked Iraq, No one liked the Taliban, Everyone agrees that its not a good idea to run unlimited deficits. The question is what you do about it then. Do you go to war? Do you try diplomacy? Do you raise taxes? Do you cut programs? That's where people stop agreeing.
I'm pretty sure most people agree the climate is changing. To what extent is C02 to blame? We don't know for sure, lets say its 100% responsible: If the biggest thing is that agriculture is changed in Kenya and migratory patterns change for some birds, and we have different trees where they didn't used to be, what do you want me to do about it? I'm not going to do much. The problem is when people advocate over-reactions in response to a problem no one is affected by yet, you won't get a lot of movement on an issue.
This is why we won't get anywhere in fighting AGW, even the Democrats really only pay lip-service to changing things in any real way. There is no political will to do the changes we are being told we should do. To change that they need reliable, proveable computer models that are predictive for future situations and not just historical data, at least in my opinion.
I'm not wanting to deny global warming. But to significantly change my lifestyle, you have to make a very strong case. The theoretical computer models are really flimsy right now. You say the science is more or less settled? What will be the average temperatures next year? By how much will they go up or down? What will be the average temperatures in 5 years? What will the sea levels be next year? What will they be in 5 years? No one really knows. This is a big problem if you are trying to convince a lot of people to trust everything you say about AGW.
As far as I'm concerned, it seems to be a lot easier to mitigate the effects of AGW, whatever they may be instead of trying to reverse them. Every prediction about AGW has been sensationalized and overblown. Until they get the consensus of scientists agreeing and able to predict with reasonable accuracy what will be happening in the future, I won't change what I do.
For example: right now, if the weatherman says there will be rain 7-8 days out I won't change my plans, Around Chicago, they have a reasonable chance of being wrong. If 2 days out they say rain, I change my plans. They are reliably right. I can't find accurate predictions for climate a year out yet. So why should I change my plans?
Those of you that say there are accurate models out there, give me the 1 year and 5 year predictions right now. We can refer back to your predictions in 1 and 5 years and see how accurate they are. Every time I say this in a AGW thread, I never get any takers. I wonder why that is.
The arguments that retooling is hard, just doesn't make it. Planned retooling is now designed into the manufacturing process. The U.S. helped develop the the Japanese manufacturing base by ignoring Demming. The Japanese were known for poor quality, so even with their lower labor rates. The Japanese improve their quality by following Demming and eventually overtook U.S. manufacturing and steel production. The remaining U.S. industries learned to focus on statistically analysis integrated quality control, and designed retooling became part of the process. So what drives the decision to outsource: 1) lower environmental standards, 2) lower overall employee costs, 3) tax benefits, 4) economic stability.
I think the underlying article hits the problem straight on. These economic factors are enticing from a cost accounting perspective, but not from a competitive one. Eventually, the knowledge is transferred to the low cost producers and they no longer need the costly U.S. managers to drive the business. We see that now with the rise of Haier and Chinese manufacturers who are beginning to dominate the lower end market. Eventually, they will displace the high margin businesses.
The U.S. main advantage in the past has been easy access to capital via efficient markets. With the current crisis and the idiotic standoff over debt, these markets may give rise to competing capital markets in SE Asia. The Chinese are flush with cash and it won't be long before they start to bypass the Western capital markets.
So what do we do? First, stop letting corporations drive the political agenda, because their short term focus is killing our industry. If we changed our focus to research that will enable lower cost production even with high labor rates, we can pull back manufacturing. This will have to be done at a grass roots level, because Wall Street will not invest in this kind of retooling when they can invest in companies that outsource. This means that we need to stop electing corrupt corporate lackies and uneducated religious nutcases, and change the rules so we encourage companies to invest here. Here a though, remove ALL corporate loopholes, and offer tax incentives only to those companies that in-source production and service jobs. Offer tax breaks to companies who invest in basic research programs that will innovate product and keep the technology here. This incentive can extend to University research which is most corporate funded anyway.
If you believe our problems stem from big government and the fear of socialism, then you are an idiot. Socialism is beating the f..king pants off of us right now, so that can't be the main issue. We as citizens must drive the political agenda and encourage Wall Street to invest in companies who develop our local economies. Otherwise, start learning Chinese because they are destined to be your overlords.
It isn't Unions, socialism, or big government that is killing us. It is the short term thinking of Wall Street. Once Wall Street was temporarily taken out of the picture at GM where they perpetuated a management culture that was adverse to change, the company was able to shed its high cost assets and return to profitability. In essence, it took government action to force the correct change in direction.
I don't think you really understand the problem, and as such I really don't see how your solutions have any chance of making it. When you create your boogeymen (Wall Street, uneducated religious nutcases, corrupt corporate lackies) and your panacea (close loopholes, limit tax breaks to a few scenarios, keep technology here) and save your sacred cows from scrutiny (big government, unions, socialism, etc.), I just don't feel you have anything meaningful to contribute to the conversation. Although you will preach to the choir who agrees with you judging by your "Insightful" rating.
In the real world there can be missteps by government, business, unions and investment systems, and there can be room for improvement all around.
IBM is incredibly great at these predictions, but not for the reasons you might think. Statements like this are meant to get attention and make people think about purchasing things from the people making the prediction. When people talk about the statement, it is successful. 10 years from now, when the statement is wrong, it has no negative effect on the company, and short term it has a positive one.
If you want these statement to actually predict reality, just remember you are asking them to do something they were never meant to do.