That's a nice piece of COVER-YOUR-ASS you got there. If it's any comfort, then don't worry, I am sure a more well-written excuse (or ten) of the same alias was ridiculed multiple times before I roasted yours.
As a part-time IBM consultant I'm required to use Notes for email, workspaces and scheduling. Using "calendar" as a verb makes you sound like you're from marketing.
Archer Daniels Midland should ask for their money back from you, shill.
There's not enough corn grown in the US to switch entirely to it Corn is yesterday's news. We all know it's a crappy source of ethanol. http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/11/1847256
This means that switchgrass ethanol delivers 540 percent of the energy used to produce it, compared with just roughly 25 percent more energy returned by corn-based ethanol according to the most optimistic studies. The current article says that the new gasification/bacteria-based process improves that 540% to over 770%.
May Wu, an environmental scientist at Argonne National Laboratory, says Coskata's ethanol produces 84 percent less greenhouse gas than fossil fuel even after accounting for the energy needed to produce and transport the feedstock. It also generates 7.7 times more energy than is required to produce it. Corn ethanol typically generates 1.3 times more energy than is used producing it. Compared directly to corn, 7.7 : 1.3 means that any shortcomings of corn are no longer relevant to discussions of biofuels as a replacement for petroleum.
I'd usually agree, but something makes me think this might be different.
"Coskata, backed by General Motors and several other investors, uses a process that is bacteria based instead of some of the other available methods." I think GM's combination of influence and incentive [financial troubles] to get this implemented will prove sufficient. I'll be watching this story, and I expect my cheap, high-quality ethanol at service stations within 10 years.
Even worse, the only free TV station in Germany that actually caters to the SciFi crowd (RTL2) also happens to have a news show that's almost entirely tabloid-level. So it can happen that during Heroes a commercial break ends with a teaser for their news show, informing me that $CELEBRITY has done $SHOCKING_THING. I didn't want to know that, but it's in a place where it's hard to completely ignore. The paparazzi just manage to get their junk everywhere. I know what you mean. I used to record my favorite programs on my computer, edit out the commercials, then watch them. It was such a hassle I eventually quit the cable subscription altogether, but occasionally I miss my Deep Space 9 re-runs, and I was just starting to get 'into' some of the Stargate shows. Oh well.
Yes, that's about it. I never said that the United Stated had to apologize for Britney Spears beign like she is; I sid that the States should apologize for Britney Spears - the media product that gets crammed down our throats all the time whether we want it or not. I thought you were talking to one specific American, and I don't agree with the "crammed down our throats all the time whether we want it or not" complaint. Radios have 'off' switches. It isn't that bad to use them occasionally, or to pay for devices that let you choose what's playing.
The people at fault are the people who make money off stories about a woman cutting off her hair. I think the people who give them their money for "stories about a woman cutting off her hair" are equally entitled to a share of the blame. I marvel at how many people are not embarrassed to have tabloid trash lying around their offices or waiting rooms.
To quote a certain YouTube celebrity: Leave Britney alone. I can't stand to hear things about her private life I never wanted to hear. I'm afraid that was Dr. Phil, who I think is generally a pompous, windbag, fountain of the obvious. Even so, I have to give credit where it's due, and that's a good point regardless of who said it.
None of which is any concern of mine or yours. We shouldn't know those details of the personal life who isn't a personal friend, and we wouldn't, except for the paparazzi. I rest my case.
And I think you're exaggerating the degree of choice that lower income brackets have over schools. Compared to no choice, a little is better. From every angle so far, the best you can do is agree that it is better, but not by much. Getting back to the point that brought education into this in the first place:
My worry is that if the national government gets too small, the kind of clashes of power seen in 1995 will become more frequent and even worse. Fifty states, each with their own population, their own values, and their own agendas, trying to wrangle agreements between each other, trying to decide on compatibility of their standards (e.g. education). It would be a nightmare. I see absolutely no reason to conclude that federal government involvement is the reason that the public primary & secondary school system partly works, except in the sense that federal meddling could very well be the reason that it only partly works. If, as you say, in a free market, parents would just send their kids to the nearest school, we don't need the federal or any other government to decide that. Standards, as I've already shown, do just fine when defined by regional authorities, and little or no government involvement is necessary for that. You replied with something about free market forces not working as well at primary and secondary school levels, but I don't believe that applies to minimum accreditation standards. If little Johnny's school lost accreditation, I think the laziness you referred to would lose to concern for their offspring, and Johnny's parents would ensure that they arrange transportation to the second-nearest school.
Instead of pursuing this advocacy for privatisation, though, I want to get back to the original claim about government size generally, and that central authority is needed "to decide on compatibility of their standards." Education was just one example offered, and a more generous one than is implied by my inability to argue the point. To prove your error in the example you cited, simply compare private & public primary & secondary schools' average cost of education per pupil, and results. The comparison does not indicate that greater central authority provides the asserted compatibility, or any other implied aspect of more efficient functioning. Of the two cases, the public one is the "nightmare." Q.E.D.
Marketing people come up with a hot idea and, for some reason, assume things just magically arrive at the customer's doorstep. It was your job to justify that assumption +/-72 hours. Were you up to it?;-)
I'm not bothered by this much. So I have to wait a few weeks for my toy... so long as they keep doing what they do (large-scale high-tech charity), and doing it well, I will not fault them for sucking at what they don't normally do. Well sir, you are the exception. I disagree with you, and agree with the GP. The recipients of the "buy one" computers intended to be charitable and waiting a few days, or weeks, or months is a social problem, maybe, but certainly not a logistical one. Logistically, they merely tell the caterer to re-schedule.
As long as the "get one free" recipients get their thousands of computers in a shipping container on time, the individual shipments to First World addresses are not going to be a big problem.
Hmm, judging by your surprise at "incompetence," and being a United States citizen m'self, I'm eager to know where you moved from, so I can move there!~
I've just moved to the UK, and the incompetence of various companies has absolutely astounded me. I've just set up
Banking
Phone
Internet
Mobile Phones
Insurance
Not once - NOT A SINGLE TIME - has the company not cocked up something that has required me to phone them back (and queue on the phone) at least once. Several cases have require multiple such calls (the worst required me to ditch them and go with someone else). It "has absolutely astounded" you? That all looks pretty typical, to me, based on experience moving among a few of the western states. Maybe you'd better tell us about the worst, before we all conclude you're just trolling.
(the worst required me to ditch them and go with someone else)...
Seriously, corporations suck - in my experience they're much more hopeless than government organisations. I agree in general that corporations suck, and I'll expound at length on the inherent evil of collective ownership and the resulting collective [non-]accountability, but it's important to remember that the corporations that have Senators & Congresscritters in their pockets -- the largest, generally -- are the ones that get away with the worst, so it isn't a "free market" that's to blame, but the commoditization of anti-free market regulations. As to "much more hopeless," dollar for dollar, I think the difference is more that when government wastes our money, our option is to write our reps in DC, and most of us don't. That only means we've gotten used to it, and that the minute amount government does for us is easier to ignore when they foul up and it's not delivered.
I reckon that whoever says the opposite has an agenda. I certainly have.
i am sure lots of americans will love you for saying that. I am sure lots of communists, and other party-line-voting US Democrats will love you for saying that.
I recently stopped trying to read a book about Ukrainian history, because it was so full of painstaking attention to facts like those. I just want to salute you for the attempt to introduce more of the relevant facts to such a vitriolic topic, because I know it's such an uphill struggle. I wish I had something better to contribute than mere thanks.
Every subsequent disagreement about the eastern part of the former Roman Empire is so full of changing names and cultural rivalry, I lament in advance all discussions of their place in history. What a mess!
Do western Europeans generally understand eastern European history better than Americans? The names are just so much different than the Latin- and Germanic-derived names I'm accustomed to seeing, and there are so many disagreements about the 'correct' name for everything, it's indecipherable from here.
True. That part of her career easily managed to out-annoy the generic pop part... Every story is a good story. Unfortunately, forcing yourself into the spotlight like that lessens your chance of getting your career back on track. So you have to force even harder in order to stay relevant... Oh. It looks to me like you blame the victim, then, and the 3 digits in your alias more accurately express your character than the 5 letters. Do you agree?
I agree; habit omitting prepositions & conjunctions headlines arose journalism because prices ink, paper. These constraints not apply this medium. Think about.
I'd be more inclined to apologize for the paparazzi who publish her every move. Bad music on loud boom-boxes in public are a much more minor irritation than certain curmudgeonly audiophiles like to pretend. Being forced into a "high-speed chase" for no offense, just being famous, is unarguably* in far worse taste than any of the tunes to which BS sings & dances.
* It's arguable, but I won't bother; I've considered the handful of arguments that I've heard dozens of times each, and that's my opinion & I'm sticking to it.
Just to be clear, that last reply was in no way intended to continue any arguments. You conceded your error, Not normal; I think somebody put something in my drink.
...and I'm completely satisfied with that. A guy always likes to hear that, even when it doesn't mean that.
It's late (1:30 AM) That was early, not late. I am such a jerk!
... & I'm tired, so if it came across wrong at all, please forgive me! Not a problem. I thought I had a good point, but if so I totally hosed it. As you correctly pointed out, at the very least my phrasing was not good enough to make the point I wanted to make, and now it's time for me to drop it. See ya round.
Crappy as AOL always was, I think some of their early, more proprietary crap proves the general feasibility of that kind of thing.... in a really, really general sense.
Wait, "openly hostile"?
For everyone else, on the other hand - more than 95% of the world's population! -, the choice is between "independent" and "controlled by an entity (the US government) which is uncaring at best and openly hostile to our interests at worst". We're letting you use part of our Internet. We built it, and your option is to be grateful for what IP addresses we allow you to use, and to subnet them wisely, or use your own infrastructure.
For us, it's an easy choice, too: an independent ICANN is better than one controlled by just one nation, representing less than 5 percent of the world's population who somehow think they're the Chosen Ones, the Master Race who shall reign over everyone else. Wow.
If you really were genuinely worried about an independent, unaccountable ICANN, you'd argue for it become a UN organisation, like UNESCO, UNICEF, the UNHCR and so on. But you're not going to do that, of course - noone on Slashdot is -, and the reason is that it's really just about keeping control for yourself. I want ICANN to be more accountable to the United States than to any other country, because the United States built the Internet. In other words, "the reason is that it's really just about keeping control for my country [yourself]." That's exactly right. Nobody wanted to "share control" when we were building it, did you? Retaining control over what we built by our effort, intelligence and resources has nothing to do with being "fascist." There, you know what's now left of your "argument"? Name-calling. May it bring you exactly what you deserve.
And I stand by my statements -- ICANN turned loose on the World with no accountability or oversight? Not a good idea.... Also, the United States funded the development of the Internet in the first place. We should have the privilege of assigning ourselves more IP addresses per capita than we hand out to the rest of the world. Let them experience the joy of subnetting!;-)
To the rest of your comment, 'Megadittoez.' I have nothing to add to that; you've already said it.
Since this is the first I've heard of such a Ponzi Scheme among phishers, I won't claim to know whether, overall, phishing or other identity theft victims will be better or worse off as a direct result. My first guess is that in the big picture, it won't be much of a difference to anybody, even the banks and their insurers.
I do know that I got a bit of visceral pleasure from the headline, and the idea of crooks fighting amongst themselves. Like a prison riot, if all the guards aren't safely on the other side of a good enough fence, it's not as funny as it sounds at first.
What? What 'higher prices'?
Most parents, for one reason or another, don't seem to want to sever most of their contact with their children (especially their primary-aged children). Indeed. I believe mammals generally are more protective of their immature offspring than other Kingdoms, and maintain assisting relationships longer, but IANAB.
They do have a choice, but the choice is an easy one. Yes, when banks [or schools, or any other supplier of good or service] compete, consumers win [or at least, lose less]. I think you forgot a "not," but I think you also can't blame me for being opportunistic on that particular error. Haaa-ha!
Plus, the added cost of accommodation means higher prices, which makes them less competitive to parents looking for the best value education. I'm guessing from "the added cost of accommodation" you're referring specifically to boarding schools and/or post-secondary education. I never meant to suggest sending younger children "away" to school than is typically the case. Similar, but lesser, competitive forces should be expected to operate if cross-town competition occurs among lower-income consumers than those who typically do send their young children to "boarding schools." That example was presented only to illustrate that the phenomenon of competition does occur, not that every detail should be expected to work to such a degree in lower tax brackets.
Boarding schools are competitive though, I'll certainly give you that. Thank you.
So too with universities, students aren't tied down to any particular location. They can now be independent from their parents. They can move anywhere, and plenty do. School graduates also don't have to go to university, so there's more incentive there to offer and maintain interesting courses to lure them into studying. I think you're exaggerating the average mobility of the post-secondary school population and the average immobility of the primary & secondary school population, and I think that when those exaggerations aren't accepted at face value, your argument hasn't got a prayer.
Slashdot Mirror
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/11/1847256
This means that switchgrass ethanol delivers 540 percent of the energy used to produce it, compared with just roughly 25 percent more energy returned by corn-based ethanol according to the most optimistic studies. The current article says that the new gasification/bacteria-based process improves that 540% to over 770%. May Wu, an environmental scientist at Argonne National Laboratory, says Coskata's ethanol produces 84 percent less greenhouse gas than fossil fuel even after accounting for the energy needed to produce and transport the feedstock. It also generates 7.7 times more energy than is required to produce it. Corn ethanol typically generates 1.3 times more energy than is used producing it. Compared directly to corn, 7.7 : 1.3 means that any shortcomings of corn are no longer relevant to discussions of biofuels as a replacement for petroleum.
None of which is any concern of mine or yours. We shouldn't know those details of the personal life who isn't a personal friend, and we wouldn't, except for the paparazzi. I rest my case.
Instead of pursuing this advocacy for privatisation, though, I want to get back to the original claim about government size generally, and that central authority is needed "to decide on compatibility of their standards." Education was just one example offered, and a more generous one than is implied by my inability to argue the point. To prove your error in the example you cited, simply compare private & public primary & secondary schools' average cost of education per pupil, and results. The comparison does not indicate that greater central authority provides the asserted compatibility, or any other implied aspect of more efficient functioning. Of the two cases, the public one is the "nightmare." Q.E.D.
As long as the "get one free" recipients get their thousands of computers in a shipping container on time, the individual shipments to First World addresses are not going to be a big problem.
Banking
Phone
Internet
Mobile Phones
Insurance
Not once - NOT A SINGLE TIME - has the company not cocked up something that has required me to phone them back (and queue on the phone) at least once. Several cases have require multiple such calls (the worst required me to ditch them and go with someone else). It "has absolutely astounded" you? That all looks pretty typical, to me, based on experience moving among a few of the western states. Maybe you'd better tell us about the worst, before we all conclude you're just trolling. (the worst required me to ditch them and go with someone else)...
Seriously, corporations suck - in my experience they're much more hopeless than government organisations. I agree in general that corporations suck, and I'll expound at length on the inherent evil of collective ownership and the resulting collective [non-]accountability, but it's important to remember that the corporations that have Senators & Congresscritters in their pockets -- the largest, generally -- are the ones that get away with the worst, so it isn't a "free market" that's to blame, but the commoditization of anti-free market regulations. As to "much more hopeless," dollar for dollar, I think the difference is more that when government wastes our money, our option is to write our reps in DC, and most of us don't. That only means we've gotten used to it, and that the minute amount government does for us is easier to ignore when they foul up and it's not delivered. I reckon that whoever says the opposite has an agenda. I certainly have.
That could never happen! Except this once, in the same e-mail that told be about this!
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/25/1535226
Don't you wish the Internet had Edit > Undo ?
i am sure lots of americans will love you for saying that. I am sure lots of communists, and other party-line-voting US Democrats will love you for saying that.
I recently stopped trying to read a book about Ukrainian history, because it was so full of painstaking attention to facts like those. I just want to salute you for the attempt to introduce more of the relevant facts to such a vitriolic topic, because I know it's such an uphill struggle. I wish I had something better to contribute than mere thanks.
Every subsequent disagreement about the eastern part of the former Roman Empire is so full of changing names and cultural rivalry, I lament in advance all discussions of their place in history. What a mess!
Do western Europeans generally understand eastern European history better than Americans? The names are just so much different than the Latin- and Germanic-derived names I'm accustomed to seeing, and there are so many disagreements about the 'correct' name for everything, it's indecipherable from here.
Have they ruled yet on whether DNA is 'personal data'?
I just figured they couldn't figure out how to switch of 'capitalization' in they're spill checker. Stupid pop of ROTC.
I agree; habit omitting prepositions & conjunctions headlines arose journalism because prices ink, paper. These constraints not apply this medium. Think about.
I'd be more inclined to apologize for the paparazzi who publish her every move. Bad music on loud boom-boxes in public are a much more minor irritation than certain curmudgeonly audiophiles like to pretend. Being forced into a "high-speed chase" for no offense, just being famous, is unarguably* in far worse taste than any of the tunes to which BS sings & dances.
* It's arguable, but I won't bother; I've considered the handful of arguments that I've heard dozens of times each, and that's my opinion & I'm sticking to it.
...and I'm completely satisfied with that. A guy always likes to hear that, even when it doesn't mean that. It's late (1:30 AM) That was early, not late. I am such a jerk!
... & I'm tired, so if it came across wrong at all, please forgive me! Not a problem. I thought I had a good point, but if so I totally hosed it. As you correctly pointed out, at the very least my phrasing was not good enough to make the point I wanted to make, and now it's time for me to drop it. See ya round.Crappy as AOL always was, I think some of their early, more proprietary crap proves the general feasibility of that kind of thing. ... in a really, really general sense.
To the rest of your comment, 'Megadittoez.' I have nothing to add to that; you've already said it.
Since this is the first I've heard of such a Ponzi Scheme among phishers, I won't claim to know whether, overall, phishing or other identity theft victims will be better or worse off as a direct result. My first guess is that in the big picture, it won't be much of a difference to anybody, even the banks and their insurers.
I do know that I got a bit of visceral pleasure from the headline, and the idea of crooks fighting amongst themselves. Like a prison riot, if all the guards aren't safely on the other side of a good enough fence, it's not as funny as it sounds at first.