Intel is thrashing around. They've moved from "you want our stuff because it's the best" to, "you're going to buy our stuff because we'll make deals with people you buy computers from". That's not well described, and I'm not an expert (my computing needs are modest) but I've seen this happen before with other tech and non-tech companies. They get big and powerful, and they forget it was willing buyers who made them that way. As far as I'm concerned, you can put me down as a default AMD customer for my next upgrade. I will stay away from Intel until I see some sign that they've remembered the customer comes first. I currently own three computers, two with Intel processors, one with AMD. One I built from components, the other two have been upgraded one way or another...more RAM, SSD drives, better power supply, etc.
It's about time for me to retire the oldest computer and replace my everyday one with something better. Normally, I'd have looked at both AMD and Intel for my upgrade/replacement. Not anymore.
Let's start with your lie: "No, I merely believe that Americans have a right to a jury trial.
Your earlier statement: "A jury of 12 citizens is still a better and more impartial means than the alternatives."
And how typical...you ascribe your own bigotry and ignorance to others. Truly pathetic. Also, you apparently didn't know the right to a jury trial extends only to the more serious criminal charges.
It's also unfair that Twitter won't allow a decent, open-minded person like yourself to debate the positive effects of slavery, and whether the Holocaust really happened.
Your faith in the US legal system is so touching! I bet you even believe every defendant has competent legal council, and no prosecutor ever managed to turn a few ambiguous, possibly misleading clues into an overwhelming certainty of guilt.
I wonder how some Americans can be so stupid and yet manage not to drown from looking up when it rains.
From the summary:"We did not determine any significant performance differences between companies with women CEOs from companies with men CEOs, so it is quite surprising that women are still, practically speaking, shut out of the market for venture capital funding, both as CEOs and participants of executive teams."
So presumably, there is a much harsher filtration system in place for women, both as CEOs and as successful funding recipients. Only the astoundingly good ones would even have a slim chance of getting money or a top job.
Yet there is no measurable performance difference.
I would have thought that if only women who are so extraordinary it is impossible to overlook them are getting money and/or becoming corporate CEOs, their performance would far outstrip that of their comparatively less gifted male counterparts.
I'm sorry, but you're probably mistaken. Thanks mainly to hospitals, where heroic measures can be taken to save the offspring of anti-vaxxer morons, the little ones won't die. They'll spread disease amongst people who cannot be vaccinated due to age or other factors, then be dragged by their idiot parents to the nearest emergency ward when they get really sick. Once there, it might cost many thousands of dollars to save each of the little darlings. For the most part, though, they'll avoid paying the price for their parents' bad decisions.
If the trend continues, there will be a day when Western Man is no longer able to produce sperm at all.
But fear not, humanity! Thanks to frozen sperm, bulls that died years ago are still fathering calves. With my high IQ and 6' 2" manly-man size, I am willing to contribute now to save First World Man from extinction.
Charlize Theron...honey...I'm afraid you'll just have to lean into the strike zone take one for the team. The future of the world will be in your hands. Literally.
Again, I hardly no where to start. The best place would be with your misrepresentation of what I said, then using your own misstatement as the basis for your argument. I did not say there has never been a nuclear plant built "on budget and on time". I said, "there has never been one built that was on time, on budget, delivered electricity at the promised cost and met its maintenance targets."
That is 100% true.
As for the rest, I'll have to respond later, when I have some time. Frankly, I'm a bit pissed off that you mischaracterized my statement so completely, then went on at length "refuting" what I did not say.
1. There can be no reliable information from China relevant to a discussion of nuclear energy in the Free World. Anybody can build a reactor with virtual slave labour, and anybody can dispose of nuclear waste when you can do everything short of flushing it down the toilet without consequence. More to the point, none of these facilities has been in operation long enough for maintenance to become an issue, and it is maintenance that is the bane of the Ontario reactors.
2. Your statement that "subsidized money", whatever that means, cannot create a multiplier effect is flat-out wrong. Seriously...you need to look up the definition, which is very straightforward. One example: You have a massive surplus of a commodity such as softwood lumber. You sell it on the international market, and use the money to subsidize a move to wind generation. The subsidy encourages people to build windmills. The source of the parts is irrelevant, though having them produced locally would be a bonus...perhaps thanks to a subsidy of the kind you're apparently overlooking when you use China as an example of nuclear plants contradicting my earlier comment. By the way, do you think China's market is open to US manufacturing...even if it was subsidized the way Chinese manufacturing is? LOL. And speaking of "at home", the labour to install and maintain solar and wind is local, and it's typically well paid. The local workers spend their money locally on local goods and services, and those local merchants, grocers, bar owners, etc. in turn spend some or all of that money to hire local staff and perhaps buy locally-grown food, beer, etc. The suppliers will hire drivers, warehouse workers and administrators locally...and so on.
In the crudest possible terms, there's your multiplier effect.
3. You ask why a totally-subsidized economy doesn't work. The answer is inflation, and it's not always a problem. Why would you use a reductio ad absurdum argument when it's obvious that there needs to be a balance. All one way or all the other (which you seem to be advocating) leads to poverty and lost opportunities. Why did Bush spend $17 billion propping up your auto sector? Did it work? And why are coal and oil so heavily subsidized, even though they're making billions of dollars a year?
4. You apparently don't understand the realities of building any kind of generating facility. In simple terms, here it is: until the moment they flip the switch, it's nothing but a hole in the ground that eats money. ALL such facilities are subsidized, one way or the other. And in straight up dollars, solar in Arizona is more cost-effective than any of its competitors. You know where it's at its most efficient, by the way? Up north, where it's frickin' cold.
5. Germany, Denmark, Sweden and a number of other "socialist" economies are somehow managing to deliver a standard of living far higher than that enjoyed by most Americans using exactly the kind of subsidized economy you say doesn't work. For that matter, Germany has carried most of Europe on its back for the last half century. The reason? Oh, yeah...America rebuilt West Germany from a ruin with the Marshall Plan...the ultimate subsidy. You guys really should study your own history. You might learn something about the benefits of subsidizing something society as a whole decides is beneficial.
6. The problem of intermittent supply is being solved right now with batteries and a variety of means of generation. It was only a few years ago people said nothing with wings and a motor could fly using electricity. If you choose to overlook the truly incredible developments in materials science generally, and energy storage density in particular, then there's not much I can say. I hope you realize batteries have improved by leaps and bounds, and there is every indication they will continue to do so. Decent storage makes intermittent supply (even assuming a decentralized grid did not result using a variety of means of g
I didn't say there isn't a role for nuclear. And I saw nothing in the Forbes article to refute what I said about the failure of nukes to deliver promised performance. I'm sorry, but I can't take China seriously as a case, for any number of reasons.
As for Ontario, we could shut down all our nuclear reactors tomorrow and buy hydroelectric-generated electricity from Quebec at one third the cost we're paying right now. If you want a horror story on the kind of cost overruns I'm discussing, google Darlington. We're talking three hundred percent. And the "upgrade" just getting underway now is already about a hundred million over budget, and they're hardly even started.
The difference with subsidizing wind and solar is that the money mostly stays in the communities where it's spent, generating an economic multiplier effect as well as electricity. Germany's "green" energy sector is now a larger employer than their auto sector, and thanks to Germany's employment model (I hesitate to use the term "unionized", although it isn't entirely inaccurate), those are well-paying jobs.
Ontario started off down the hydro road, then switched to nuclear. It has not gone well. Darlington is a mess, Pickering looks to be an even worse mess, and the largest, Bruce Power, which is private, has just signed a $13 billion maintenance/upgrade deal with the province that might very well turn into the worst economic nightmare yet. Plus, workers have been alleging unsafe conditions.
Slashdot Mirror
Great analysis. Wish I could disagree, but I really can't.
Intel is thrashing around. They've moved from "you want our stuff because it's the best" to, "you're going to buy our stuff because we'll make deals with people you buy computers from". That's not well described, and I'm not an expert (my computing needs are modest) but I've seen this happen before with other tech and non-tech companies. They get big and powerful, and they forget it was willing buyers who made them that way. As far as I'm concerned, you can put me down as a default AMD customer for my next upgrade. I will stay away from Intel until I see some sign that they've remembered the customer comes first. I currently own three computers, two with Intel processors, one with AMD. One I built from components, the other two have been upgraded one way or another...more RAM, SSD drives, better power supply, etc.
It's about time for me to retire the oldest computer and replace my everyday one with something better. Normally, I'd have looked at both AMD and Intel for my upgrade/replacement. Not anymore.
Ben would have been a good guy to know. Bright, loved the ladies, known to take an occasional sip of alcohol...
Or both.
That rich, are you. ;-)
Barn Door, Meet Horse.
This probably isn't the right venue to discuss your sexual fantasies, especially with respect to the particular kind of marital aid you prefer.
Of course I understand why. Concepts like human dignity and common decency are unknown to you. Also the bill of rights, probably.
I don't believe you.
Let's start with your lie: "No, I merely believe that Americans have a right to a jury trial.
Your earlier statement: "A jury of 12 citizens is still a better and more impartial means than the alternatives."
And how typical...you ascribe your own bigotry and ignorance to others. Truly pathetic. Also, you apparently didn't know the right to a jury trial extends only to the more serious criminal charges.
Do youhave any other lies handy?
It's also unfair that Twitter won't allow a decent, open-minded person like yourself to debate the positive effects of slavery, and whether the Holocaust really happened.
Oh, my...you even believe all trials have juries...and that the juries are always 12 people.
Arrogance, stupidity and ignorance all in one package. You've hit the trifecta!
And I'm not European, by the way. :-)
Your faith in the US legal system is so touching! I bet you even believe every defendant has competent legal council, and no prosecutor ever managed to turn a few ambiguous, possibly misleading clues into an overwhelming certainty of guilt.
I wonder how some Americans can be so stupid and yet manage not to drown from looking up when it rains.
Good point!
From the summary:"We did not determine any significant performance differences between companies with women CEOs from companies with men CEOs, so it is quite surprising that women are still, practically speaking, shut out of the market for venture capital funding, both as CEOs and participants of executive teams."
So presumably, there is a much harsher filtration system in place for women, both as CEOs and as successful funding recipients. Only the astoundingly good ones would even have a slim chance of getting money or a top job.
Yet there is no measurable performance difference.
I would have thought that if only women who are so extraordinary it is impossible to overlook them are getting money and/or becoming corporate CEOs, their performance would far outstrip that of their comparatively less gifted male counterparts.
I'm sorry, but you're probably mistaken. Thanks mainly to hospitals, where heroic measures can be taken to save the offspring of anti-vaxxer morons, the little ones won't die. They'll spread disease amongst people who cannot be vaccinated due to age or other factors, then be dragged by their idiot parents to the nearest emergency ward when they get really sick. Once there, it might cost many thousands of dollars to save each of the little darlings. For the most part, though, they'll avoid paying the price for their parents' bad decisions.
We will do that, with our tax dollars.
If the trend continues, there will be a day when Western Man is no longer able to produce sperm at all.
But fear not, humanity! Thanks to frozen sperm, bulls that died years ago are still fathering calves. With my high IQ and 6' 2" manly-man size, I am willing to contribute now to save First World Man from extinction.
Charlize Theron...honey...I'm afraid you'll just have to lean into the strike zone take one for the team. The future of the world will be in your hands. Literally.
Inbox me, honey. Let's get this done!
Get one!!!
Sincerely,
The Gubmint
Your cynicism does you great credit.
Thank you, my friend. I suspect, though, that other people might also notice this. I certainly got a good belly laugh out of it.
Are Nondisparagement Agreements Silencing Employee Complaints?
If they're working as intended, yes. Of course they are. That's their purpose.
In theory, enemy nations wouldn't dare attack if they knew they'd face certain retaliation within minutes.
LOL-tech solution:
Step 1: Frame an enemy.
Step 2: Open bag of popcorn.
Step 3: Enjoy the show.
The conspiracy is even deeper than you think, and yet it is there for all to see, when you know where to look.
If you take all the vowels out of his name, "Reince Priebus" becomes "RNC PR BS".
Again, I hardly no where to start. The best place would be with your misrepresentation of what I said, then using your own misstatement as the basis for your argument. I did not say there has never been a nuclear plant built "on budget and on time". I said, "there has never been one built that was on time, on budget, delivered electricity at the promised cost and met its maintenance targets."
That is 100% true.
As for the rest, I'll have to respond later, when I have some time. Frankly, I'm a bit pissed off that you mischaracterized my statement so completely, then went on at length "refuting" what I did not say.
I don't quite know where to start.
1. There can be no reliable information from China relevant to a discussion of nuclear energy in the Free World. Anybody can build a reactor with virtual slave labour, and anybody can dispose of nuclear waste when you can do everything short of flushing it down the toilet without consequence. More to the point, none of these facilities has been in operation long enough for maintenance to become an issue, and it is maintenance that is the bane of the Ontario reactors.
2. Your statement that "subsidized money", whatever that means, cannot create a multiplier effect is flat-out wrong. Seriously...you need to look up the definition, which is very straightforward. One example: You have a massive surplus of a commodity such as softwood lumber. You sell it on the international market, and use the money to subsidize a move to wind generation. The subsidy encourages people to build windmills. The source of the parts is irrelevant, though having them produced locally would be a bonus...perhaps thanks to a subsidy of the kind you're apparently overlooking when you use China as an example of nuclear plants contradicting my earlier comment. By the way, do you think China's market is open to US manufacturing...even if it was subsidized the way Chinese manufacturing is? LOL. And speaking of "at home", the labour to install and maintain solar and wind is local, and it's typically well paid. The local workers spend their money locally on local goods and services, and those local merchants, grocers, bar owners, etc. in turn spend some or all of that money to hire local staff and perhaps buy locally-grown food, beer, etc. The suppliers will hire drivers, warehouse workers and administrators locally...and so on.
In the crudest possible terms, there's your multiplier effect.
3. You ask why a totally-subsidized economy doesn't work. The answer is inflation, and it's not always a problem. Why would you use a reductio ad absurdum argument when it's obvious that there needs to be a balance. All one way or all the other (which you seem to be advocating) leads to poverty and lost opportunities. Why did Bush spend $17 billion propping up your auto sector? Did it work? And why are coal and oil so heavily subsidized, even though they're making billions of dollars a year?
4. You apparently don't understand the realities of building any kind of generating facility. In simple terms, here it is: until the moment they flip the switch, it's nothing but a hole in the ground that eats money. ALL such facilities are subsidized, one way or the other. And in straight up dollars, solar in Arizona is more cost-effective than any of its competitors. You know where it's at its most efficient, by the way? Up north, where it's frickin' cold.
5. Germany, Denmark, Sweden and a number of other "socialist" economies are somehow managing to deliver a standard of living far higher than that enjoyed by most Americans using exactly the kind of subsidized economy you say doesn't work. For that matter, Germany has carried most of Europe on its back for the last half century. The reason? Oh, yeah...America rebuilt West Germany from a ruin with the Marshall Plan...the ultimate subsidy. You guys really should study your own history. You might learn something about the benefits of subsidizing something society as a whole decides is beneficial.
6. The problem of intermittent supply is being solved right now with batteries and a variety of means of generation. It was only a few years ago people said nothing with wings and a motor could fly using electricity. If you choose to overlook the truly incredible developments in materials science generally, and energy storage density in particular, then there's not much I can say. I hope you realize batteries have improved by leaps and bounds, and there is every indication they will continue to do so. Decent storage makes intermittent supply (even assuming a decentralized grid did not result using a variety of means of g
I didn't say there isn't a role for nuclear. And I saw nothing in the Forbes article to refute what I said about the failure of nukes to deliver promised performance. I'm sorry, but I can't take China seriously as a case, for any number of reasons.
As for Ontario, we could shut down all our nuclear reactors tomorrow and buy hydroelectric-generated electricity from Quebec at one third the cost we're paying right now. If you want a horror story on the kind of cost overruns I'm discussing, google Darlington. We're talking three hundred percent. And the "upgrade" just getting underway now is already about a hundred million over budget, and they're hardly even started.
The difference with subsidizing wind and solar is that the money mostly stays in the communities where it's spent, generating an economic multiplier effect as well as electricity. Germany's "green" energy sector is now a larger employer than their auto sector, and thanks to Germany's employment model (I hesitate to use the term "unionized", although it isn't entirely inaccurate), those are well-paying jobs.
Ontario started off down the hydro road, then switched to nuclear. It has not gone well. Darlington is a mess, Pickering looks to be an even worse mess, and the largest, Bruce Power, which is private, has just signed a $13 billion maintenance/upgrade deal with the province that might very well turn into the worst economic nightmare yet. Plus, workers have been alleging unsafe conditions.