We have acquired a Mac Mini and are looking into packages for OSX. There hasn't been much success to date, though you can use the beta ports file for mac ports.
That would require making a new commitment to the desktop, which would require standing up to all the marketing analysts who insist that the desktop is soooo yesterday.
As one who's livelihood depends on the desktop, I badly want Microsoft to get back to its bread and butter, and quit forcing Ribbons and Modern Apps that only get in the way of workflow. But I don't hold out much hope that anyone in Redmond has enough spine to turn it around.
Maybe something more like Gigabtyte's Brix Pro, or AsRock's Vision X. Going small comes with a cost, and often requires an external power brick (Mac Mini has power supply built-in), but there are lots of tiny PC's out there.
It would have made more sense to have the mobile GUI run as an application over a desktop system, and just give users the choice.
Agreed. But Microsoft got greedy. It wasn't just about getting into the mobile market, it was BEING a market. Metro is a vector for the Microsoft store, where they get to take a cut of every app sold. Bean-counters saw the revenue of Apple's App Store, and demanded that Microsoft get in on that racket by leveraging their market-share of the desktop.
They figure if Metro wasn't front-and-center on every desktop as a non-option, people would opt out and the Store might take too long to take off and generate the apps needed to persuade people to switch from iOS or Android. Trouble is, these things can't be forced.
I use Windows 7 at work, lots of word processing and PDF documents. These are now essential to me:
Winroll (right-click on X pushes window behind other windows)
do-PDF
Handyfind (must-have find-text-as-you-type tool, works in most apps incl. Office)
Cygwin (rsync, fortune messages in a periodic loop)
ClassicShell
PDF-Xchange Viewer (free OCR)
7-zip
Actual Window Manager (Commercial, but worth it. Sizer is a less capable but free substitute).
T-Clock 2010
Office 2003 (white-hot hate for the Ribbon; will re-consider LibreOffice/OpenOffice if they ever provide a Normal/Draft Mode for Writer)
Marxio Checksum Verifier
LibreOffice Draw
Gimp (imports and edits scanned PDF files) ...and my weirdest one: Window 7 hack to enable focus-follow-mouse.
The latter was available for XP under TweakUI, but went missing with Windows 7 and I needed it so bad I wound up hacking something myself.
Like Winroll and Actual Window Manager, this feature is inspired by a lot of time with X11. I cut my teeth back in the day with twm and lots of X-terms and Emacs windows, and I grew used to simply hitting the mouse with the side of my hand to shift from one window to another, without actually gripping the mouse and lining up my finger to click the button. Now, I find wherever I put the mouse pointer, I expect the underlying window to scroll with the wheel - I don't expect to have to click the left-button first and often don't want the window to raise either (oddly this is how it works on stock OS X, but only for the scroll wheel).
Windows plays surprisingly nice with focus-follow-mouse, and the odd UI glitches here and there with one app or another I've learned to work around; it's worth it.
And I'm sure you could find countless folks willing to do the dirty work for such "unsexy" companies for just 1% of what modern (US) CEOs are taking home. And chances are they'd be far more qualified and effective to boot.
The fact is the rest of the planet doesn't have this issue. The rest of the planet doesn't find it necessary to throw ungodly amounts of cash at folks to get them to take a CEO job. Only in the US does this happen, and their performance, globally speaking, is pathetic in comparison. So we're paying far more and getting far less.
Your entire theory is bunk.
Well, I wasn't trying to suggest a theory, more an observation.:-\
and I tend to think you're right that U.S. companies are paying far more and getting far less. The nagging question is why this keeps happening.
If I have a theory, it's that when money gets big, people start getting irrational. You can't control whether the man you hire is going to do a good job or not, but you can control how much you pay him. Pay him less, and he fails, shame on you because you were too cheap and you got what you paid for. Pay him more, and he fails, shame on him because you did all you could.
Puts a well-connected CEO-type in a real sweet bargaining position, which would tend to keep inflating CEO salaries.
Are you sure? I find it hilarious how huge companies have to lay off thousands of employees, yet the CEOs are still making their 10s of millions in salary. How about first eliminating bonuses, as well as dropping salary before eliminating employees.
For example,Blackberry CEO getting a compensation package of 88 mil literally days before laying off a bunch of employees. How about offering him 50 mil instead and keeping on 700 workers
Here's why that didn't happen: Blackberry was in financial trouble, losing money each day, which gets the biggest shareholders (including the Board members) really nervous. When a company is losing money (or widely perceived to be), it can't get (or has to pay a lot more for) loans, like the short-term kind (commercial paper) it needs to do day-to-day stuff like pay salaries. The Board demands quick action, and that requires an intact management structure. The Board can't get things done if all its executives are jumping ship to save themselves. But to stick around, the senior-type executives gotta get paid.
Eliminate bonuses? Take a pay cut? Here's the thing: dollar-for-dollar, most senior executives are better off quitting ("retiring"), unless some divorce, gambling addition or coke habit has eaten away all their savings. Also, it's just a thing that senior management types tend to find new jobs (e.g., consultant) more easily than your typical laid-off worker (or just about anyone else). All this adds up to one thing: Mr. CEO can demand the kind of pay that makes it worthwhile for him to come to work each day for a company that isn't sexy, that may not be around much longer, and requires that he do, well, unpleasant things. Like fire 1000's of workers.
And by shedding thousands of workers the company can't afford to pay, he makes the books look better, which gets Wall Street to lend money again, which pays the bills to keep the lights on a bit longer, and makes the Board members a little happier, who pays him a bonus to stick around longer and save them the hassle of having to find someone else to do his job. At least until the company is worth enough on paper that it can be sold off and finally be someone else's problem.
I remember this same thing when Vista came out. Pre-release press was met with a lot of reviews pointing out its failings, but once it became clear that Vista was a done deal, along came the shills. Article after article cherry-picking a good feature, rationalizing away its faults, diverting attention to the age of XP, or just shilling that we should all just get used to it and that's that.
Then Windows 7 is announced and all that goes away. Vista? Vista who? Windows 7 just worked, and people didn't write about it so much as just get it and use it.
But when Microsoft dropped the Windows 8 turd, the smoke machine fired right up again and articles like this just crop up all over the place, all trying to urge us that Metro is great and get used to it because we're stuck with it because the focus groups said so. Even though the adoption numbers clearly show that REAL people hate it. Probably bunches of these apologists are paid for by Microsoft, and others are just going for that warm fuzzy feeling of following the herd.
Microsoft really should get some better focus groups.
I suggest the Admissions Department screwed up. From their own web site, Harvard rejects roughly 95% of its applicants, yet this guy made the cut.
My guess is he'll get his slap on the wrist, be allowed to graduate, join the Old Boys' Club (to which all Harvard men are entitled), and someday ruin the work of scores of hard-working engineers, driving some company into bankruptcy, and then offer his wisdom for a fee to the Federal government.
Either way, there'll be a nice fat endowment to the alma mater come tax time. Point is, Harvard sent a lot of outstanding applicants to their safety schools so a dumb guy like this can forever put Harvard on his resume.
The x1080 is more popular as a TV because movies are filmed in 16::9.
No they aren't.
HDTV is shot at 16:9 because that's what the TVs are. But movies are usually wider, at 1.85:1 or 2.40:1.
These twolinks do a really good job of illustrating the different screen sizes (i.e., aspect ratios) in use for TV and movies. 16:9 was not chosen for HD because it is the same as movies shot on film (it's not), but because it's reasonably close.
That's the great thing about electric motors: max torque is at zero Km/h.
Then drops off like a cliff so it has no top end.
Like to see your figures behind that. Car and Driver says:
We measured 0-to-60 mph in 4.6 seconds, a quarter-mile of 13.3 seconds at 104 mph, and a governed top speed of 134 mph. That’s similar to the performance of the V-8 German sedans.
and from what I have read, that's typical. The electric motor keeps up the torque across a much wider band, negating the need for a complex multi-speed transmission. Yeah, the torque drops off, but not until you've blown the doors off most ICE-powered cars simply by flooring the pedal (no clutching, no shifting, just go).
Sure sounds fun to me.
Actually, GM kinda does have the same problem. GM is looking into cutting out dealers and sell directly online.
Not clear how far GM wants to go with this, but it would sure be fun to see them duke it out with the dealers.
That ugly GUI that collects budget numbers from 500 databases and displays an "executive dashboard" was probably slapped together by an Accenture type outfit using offshore new grad coders and sold to companies for millions.
Furthermore, consider the competition: If you believe the party line, A Mercedes Benz can randomly eject its drivetrain and burn itself to a crisp, killing the occupants.
Good to know the drivetrain is safe. I mean, if you're gonna have an accident, eject the most valuable parts, right?
And who says it was random? Occupants efficiently terminated. Drivetrain available for re-use.
The US is one of the most corrupt nations on earth
Haven't traveled much, have we?
if you look hard enough you'll notice all companies engaging in criminal behavior, or making their criminal behavior legal through putting themselves in government
All companies? Criminal behavior? *sigh* Got data? I'd love to read it.
Seriously, the U.S. got some fuck-ups going on, some shit to answer for and clean up, but worst?
At least humor me where's better (not Canada, too cold) and maybe I'll move there with you!
If you are allowed to expose the sample to ridiculous temperatures and open flames, though, why expensive lasers rather than boring (and mature and relatively cheap) cutting torches or thermic lances?
Because they're freakin' laser beams! It's awesome!
THIS.
and maybe because there's something problematic about delivering and burning an oxidant and fuel in the intended environment.
but mostly, it's just awesome. freakin' laser beams, hand-held, and with a squeeze trigger. I'd stand in line to try that sucker out.
Why? To punish the rich for being rich? To punish Wall Street for making so much money?
No. To control the market, to put a disincentive to trading for trade's sake and locking up capital in the hands of a few until they come to control the market itself.
After the last Great Depression, people realized that Wall Street will always go out of control, eventually. We've forgotten those lessons, and removed the regulations that kept Wall Street boring (it sure wasn't sexy to be a banker in the 70's) and kept capital where it belongs: industry.
Under those old rules, Wall Street made money by performing financial services, and thus sharing in the success of industry, but otherwise sat on the sidelines.
Trading for trading's sake, however, is simply buying low and selling high. No matter how complex the instrument, it all boils down to buy low, sell high. And therein lies the rub; somebody has to lose.
Yep, there has to be a loser. One of the parties in the trade is going to get something that's worth less than they think it is, and the other's going to profit from it. Arbitrage, for example, is where some poor fool is offering more money to buy something than some other poor fool is selling it for. Wall Street swoops in, buys from the one and sells to the other, banks the difference. Free money! Too bad the two fools couldn't have found each other on their own... both paid/received the wrong price.
HFT only facilitates one bank making the deal (getting at the sucker) quicker than another. And the higher the speed, the less thinking the other party has to consider whether the deal is any good or not. Assuming that the first party can think that fast, which they probably can't. But they can't appear to be trading with yesterday's tech, can they? Otherwise, people will consider them out-dated, and target them for a sucker.
Buy low, sell high. I know this stack of Mortgage Backed Securities is worthless, but you haven't heard the news and I'll tell you it's great and you have 15 seconds to make the trade or it's going to someone else. That's right, little fish, take the bait.
There should not be a place "scientific" journals in modern science. They have no added value whatsoever and in fact harm free sharing of knowledge and information.
Anybody who makes that claim has no real grasp of how science works. Science journals have come under fire for a variety of reasons in recent years, but the peer review process that is central to scientific publishing is why journals are so important.
THIS.
What bothers me the most is that whenever something, and I mean anything, has problems, some people must shill about throwing it all out. Don't fix it, or even figure out whether the problem is real or not. Just post that it all should get torn down. Ahhh... self-satisfaction.
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.
On the other hand, there is all too great a likelihood that he would have blown his six francs on hookers, lottery tickets, drugs or drink, lost it gambling or being scammed by a con-artist, or buried it away purportedly for a rainy day but will never touch it because he's developed a miser complex and would sooner chew off his own foot than spend his savings.
Remind you of anyone you know, maybe?
Economic theory too often assumes everyone is rational, when in real-life lots of people are idiots, particularly when it comes to money. For such people, it takes something like a broken window to force them to put their money to good use.
Slashdot Mirror
Not a vagina, just a camel-toe.
We have acquired a Mac Mini and are looking into packages for OSX. There hasn't been much success to date, though you can use the beta ports file for mac ports.
The ones that are full of shit because they're too busy jizzing their pants over consumer gadgetry?
Yes, my dear sir, those are EXACTLY the ones I was referring to.
That would require making a new commitment to the desktop, which would require standing up to all the marketing analysts who insist that the desktop is soooo yesterday.
As one who's livelihood depends on the desktop, I badly want Microsoft to get back to its bread and butter, and quit forcing Ribbons and Modern Apps that only get in the way of workflow. But I don't hold out much hope that anyone in Redmond has enough spine to turn it around.
Maybe something more like Gigabtyte's Brix Pro, or AsRock's Vision X. Going small comes with a cost, and often requires an external power brick (Mac Mini has power supply built-in), but there are lots of tiny PC's out there.
It would have made more sense to have the mobile GUI run as an application over a desktop system, and just give users the choice.
Agreed. But Microsoft got greedy. It wasn't just about getting into the mobile market, it was BEING a market. Metro is a vector for the Microsoft store, where they get to take a cut of every app sold. Bean-counters saw the revenue of Apple's App Store, and demanded that Microsoft get in on that racket by leveraging their market-share of the desktop.
They figure if Metro wasn't front-and-center on every desktop as a non-option, people would opt out and the Store might take too long to take off and generate the apps needed to persuade people to switch from iOS or Android. Trouble is, these things can't be forced.
I use Windows 7 at work, lots of word processing and PDF documents. These are now essential to me:
...and my weirdest one: Window 7 hack to enable focus-follow-mouse.
Winroll (right-click on X pushes window behind other windows)
do-PDF
Handyfind (must-have find-text-as-you-type tool, works in most apps incl. Office)
Cygwin (rsync, fortune messages in a periodic loop)
ClassicShell
PDF-Xchange Viewer (free OCR)
7-zip
Actual Window Manager (Commercial, but worth it. Sizer is a less capable but free substitute).
T-Clock 2010
Office 2003 (white-hot hate for the Ribbon; will re-consider LibreOffice/OpenOffice if they ever provide a Normal/Draft Mode for Writer)
Marxio Checksum Verifier
LibreOffice Draw
Gimp (imports and edits scanned PDF files)
The latter was available for XP under TweakUI, but went missing with Windows 7 and I needed it so bad I wound up hacking something myself.
Like Winroll and Actual Window Manager, this feature is inspired by a lot of time with X11. I cut my teeth back in the day with twm and lots of X-terms and Emacs windows, and I grew used to simply hitting the mouse with the side of my hand to shift from one window to another, without actually gripping the mouse and lining up my finger to click the button. Now, I find wherever I put the mouse pointer, I expect the underlying window to scroll with the wheel - I don't expect to have to click the left-button first and often don't want the window to raise either (oddly this is how it works on stock OS X, but only for the scroll wheel).
Windows plays surprisingly nice with focus-follow-mouse, and the odd UI glitches here and there with one app or another I've learned to work around; it's worth it.
And I'm sure you could find countless folks willing to do the dirty work for such "unsexy" companies for just 1% of what modern (US) CEOs are taking home. And chances are they'd be far more qualified and effective to boot.
The fact is the rest of the planet doesn't have this issue. The rest of the planet doesn't find it necessary to throw ungodly amounts of cash at folks to get them to take a CEO job. Only in the US does this happen, and their performance, globally speaking, is pathetic in comparison. So we're paying far more and getting far less.
Your entire theory is bunk.
Well, I wasn't trying to suggest a theory, more an observation. :-\
and I tend to think you're right that U.S. companies are paying far more and getting far less. The nagging question is why this keeps happening.
If I have a theory, it's that when money gets big, people start getting irrational. You can't control whether the man you hire is going to do a good job or not, but you can control how much you pay him. Pay him less, and he fails, shame on you because you were too cheap and you got what you paid for. Pay him more, and he fails, shame on him because you did all you could.
Puts a well-connected CEO-type in a real sweet bargaining position, which would tend to keep inflating CEO salaries.
Are you sure? I find it hilarious how huge companies have to lay off thousands of employees, yet the CEOs are still making their 10s of millions in salary. How about first eliminating bonuses, as well as dropping salary before eliminating employees.
,Blackberry CEO getting a compensation package of 88 mil literally days before laying off a bunch of employees. How about offering him 50 mil instead and keeping on 700 workers
For example
Here's why that didn't happen: Blackberry was in financial trouble, losing money each day, which gets the biggest shareholders (including the Board members) really nervous. When a company is losing money (or widely perceived to be), it can't get (or has to pay a lot more for) loans, like the short-term kind (commercial paper) it needs to do day-to-day stuff like pay salaries. The Board demands quick action, and that requires an intact management structure. The Board can't get things done if all its executives are jumping ship to save themselves. But to stick around, the senior-type executives gotta get paid.
Eliminate bonuses? Take a pay cut? Here's the thing: dollar-for-dollar, most senior executives are better off quitting ("retiring"), unless some divorce, gambling addition or coke habit has eaten away all their savings. Also, it's just a thing that senior management types tend to find new jobs (e.g., consultant) more easily than your typical laid-off worker (or just about anyone else). All this adds up to one thing: Mr. CEO can demand the kind of pay that makes it worthwhile for him to come to work each day for a company that isn't sexy, that may not be around much longer, and requires that he do, well, unpleasant things. Like fire 1000's of workers.
And by shedding thousands of workers the company can't afford to pay, he makes the books look better, which gets Wall Street to lend money again, which pays the bills to keep the lights on a bit longer, and makes the Board members a little happier, who pays him a bonus to stick around longer and save them the hassle of having to find someone else to do his job. At least until the company is worth enough on paper that it can be sold off and finally be someone else's problem.
Awful, isn't it? That's how shit happens!
or just install Classic Shell (or similar), and have the Metro screen bypassed automatically.
Third-party workarounds are the saving grace of Windows.
I remember this same thing when Vista came out. Pre-release press was met with a lot of reviews pointing out its failings, but once it became clear that Vista was a done deal, along came the shills. Article after article cherry-picking a good feature, rationalizing away its faults, diverting attention to the age of XP, or just shilling that we should all just get used to it and that's that.
Then Windows 7 is announced and all that goes away. Vista? Vista who? Windows 7 just worked, and people didn't write about it so much as just get it and use it.
But when Microsoft dropped the Windows 8 turd, the smoke machine fired right up again and articles like this just crop up all over the place, all trying to urge us that Metro is great and get used to it because we're stuck with it because the focus groups said so. Even though the adoption numbers clearly show that REAL people hate it. Probably bunches of these apologists are paid for by Microsoft, and others are just going for that warm fuzzy feeling of following the herd.
Microsoft really should get some better focus groups.
Well could I have her Metro instead of the baked beans then?
I suggest the Admissions Department screwed up. From their own web site, Harvard rejects roughly 95% of its applicants, yet this guy made the cut.
My guess is he'll get his slap on the wrist, be allowed to graduate, join the Old Boys' Club (to which all Harvard men are entitled), and someday ruin the work of scores of hard-working engineers, driving some company into bankruptcy, and then offer his wisdom for a fee to the Federal government.
Either way, there'll be a nice fat endowment to the alma mater come tax time. Point is, Harvard sent a lot of outstanding applicants to their safety schools so a dumb guy like this can forever put Harvard on his resume.
The x1080 is more popular as a TV because movies are filmed in 16::9.
No they aren't.
HDTV is shot at 16:9 because that's what the TVs are. But movies are usually wider, at 1.85:1 or 2.40:1.
These two links do a really good job of illustrating the different screen sizes (i.e., aspect ratios) in use for TV and movies. 16:9 was not chosen for HD because it is the same as movies shot on film (it's not), but because it's reasonably close.
That's the great thing about electric motors: max torque is at zero Km/h.
Then drops off like a cliff so it has no top end.
Like to see your figures behind that. Car and Driver says:
We measured 0-to-60 mph in 4.6 seconds, a quarter-mile of 13.3 seconds at 104 mph, and a governed top speed of 134 mph. That’s similar to the performance of the V-8 German sedans.
and from what I have read, that's typical. The electric motor keeps up the torque across a much wider band, negating the need for a complex multi-speed transmission. Yeah, the torque drops off, but not until you've blown the doors off most ICE-powered cars simply by flooring the pedal (no clutching, no shifting, just go).
Sure sounds fun to me.
Actually, GM kinda does have the same problem. GM is looking into cutting out dealers and sell directly online.
Not clear how far GM wants to go with this, but it would sure be fun to see them duke it out with the dealers.
"If a man drift with another man as if with a woman, they shall be stoned."
Insert pot joke here. Laugh hysterically. Repeat.
That ugly GUI that collects budget numbers from 500 databases and displays an "executive dashboard" was probably slapped together by an Accenture type outfit using offshore new grad coders and sold to companies for millions.
THIS. ('nuff said).
Furthermore, consider the competition: If you believe the party line, A Mercedes Benz can randomly eject its drivetrain and burn itself to a crisp, killing the occupants.
Good to know the drivetrain is safe. I mean, if you're gonna have an accident, eject the most valuable parts, right?
And who says it was random? Occupants efficiently terminated. Drivetrain available for re-use.
The US is one of the most corrupt nations on earth
Haven't traveled much, have we?
if you look hard enough you'll notice all companies engaging in criminal behavior, or making their criminal behavior legal through putting themselves in government
All companies? Criminal behavior? *sigh* Got data? I'd love to read it.
Seriously, the U.S. got some fuck-ups going on, some shit to answer for and clean up, but worst?
At least humor me where's better (not Canada, too cold) and maybe I'll move there with you!
If you are allowed to expose the sample to ridiculous temperatures and open flames, though, why expensive lasers rather than boring (and mature and relatively cheap) cutting torches or thermic lances?
Because they're freakin' laser beams! It's awesome!
THIS.
and maybe because there's something problematic about delivering and burning an oxidant and fuel in the intended environment.
but mostly, it's just awesome. freakin' laser beams, hand-held, and with a squeeze trigger. I'd stand in line to try that sucker out.
Burn Wall Street. Eat the rich.
No, tax Wall Street, Tax the rich.
Why? To punish the rich for being rich? To punish Wall Street for making so much money?
No. To control the market, to put a disincentive to trading for trade's sake and locking up capital in the hands of a few until they come to control the market itself.
After the last Great Depression, people realized that Wall Street will always go out of control, eventually. We've forgotten those lessons, and removed the regulations that kept Wall Street boring (it sure wasn't sexy to be a banker in the 70's) and kept capital where it belongs: industry.
Under those old rules, Wall Street made money by performing financial services, and thus sharing in the success of industry, but otherwise sat on the sidelines.
Trading for trading's sake, however, is simply buying low and selling high. No matter how complex the instrument, it all boils down to buy low, sell high. And therein lies the rub; somebody has to lose.
Yep, there has to be a loser. One of the parties in the trade is going to get something that's worth less than they think it is, and the other's going to profit from it. Arbitrage, for example, is where some poor fool is offering more money to buy something than some other poor fool is selling it for. Wall Street swoops in, buys from the one and sells to the other, banks the difference. Free money! Too bad the two fools couldn't have found each other on their own... both paid/received the wrong price.
HFT only facilitates one bank making the deal (getting at the sucker) quicker than another. And the higher the speed, the less thinking the other party has to consider whether the deal is any good or not. Assuming that the first party can think that fast, which they probably can't. But they can't appear to be trading with yesterday's tech, can they? Otherwise, people will consider them out-dated, and target them for a sucker.
Buy low, sell high. I know this stack of Mortgage Backed Securities is worthless, but you haven't heard the news and I'll tell you it's great and you have 15 seconds to make the trade or it's going to someone else. That's right, little fish, take the bait.
The GP states,
There should not be a place "scientific" journals in modern science. They have no added value whatsoever and in fact harm free sharing of knowledge and information.
Anybody who makes that claim has no real grasp of how science works. Science journals have come under fire for a variety of reasons in recent years, but the peer review process that is central to scientific publishing is why journals are so important.
THIS.
What bothers me the most is that whenever something, and I mean anything, has problems, some people must shill about throwing it all out. Don't fix it, or even figure out whether the problem is real or not. Just post that it all should get torn down. Ahhh... self-satisfaction.
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.
On the other hand, there is all too great a likelihood that he would have blown his six francs on hookers, lottery tickets, drugs or drink, lost it gambling or being scammed by a con-artist, or buried it away purportedly for a rainy day but will never touch it because he's developed a miser complex and would sooner chew off his own foot than spend his savings.
Remind you of anyone you know, maybe?
Economic theory too often assumes everyone is rational, when in real-life lots of people are idiots, particularly when it comes to money. For such people, it takes something like a broken window to force them to put their money to good use.
>Solar only works in Germany because it is heavily subsidized.
You think nuclear could exist without heavy subsidy?
Do you think anything exists without subsidy?