I work at Woolworths (The parent company), and I really wonder if I start blowing my trumpet about this, will:
a) Anyone in management have a clue what this means.
b) Anyone be able to track down someone who can actually DO something about it.
c) (sadly) whether anyone will actually care enough to make a change for the better.
It also means a lower angle on the ocean, which may well mean that it's harder to see the oil.
I totally agree with the points you made. The obvious thing of course is to simply get a higher angle, by either getting onto an object on the beach, or by getting onto the roof/upper deck of a boat you are in. Sixty five feet really isn't that far.
Is it as good as getting a shot from 1 foot of the object? Not at all. I totally agree, but I can sort of understand why they don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry to go bungling around booms and things meant to STOP the oil.
Great for Journalism? No.
Great for folks wanting to brush this under the carpet. Yes.
Great for the cleanup/relief effort? Hopefully.
Why arrest them in a big show though? Usually spies are expelled not arrested.
If you were leading a TEN YEAR investigation, wouldn't YOUR office be demanding some publicity at the end of it to justify ten years of spending on your salaries, the investigative costs and so forth?
The best way to deflect a financial inquiry is to point at the TV where your "heroes" are out there making your country safe.
I hereby demand that all banks wishing to do business with me keep all of their monies in my mattress! This is not a request!
That doesn't work so well unless you, like China, have something that everyone wants. China has cheap labor and makes a bunch of stuff. Oh, and they have a HUGE market. Hence everyone wants to do business with them. What do you have to offer that all the banks want?
Bugs are one thing; every written piece of software contains bugs. But when you intentionally code the program to fail at certain intervals you are cheating the customers.
Doesn't that also fling the doors WIDE open for damages suits to be filed against the company for losses in the clients companies?
Is it? Or do the old-timers just not get new technology?
Besides, most people over 40 don't want to spend 60hours+/week at work.
It depends on the sort of work that is available. Older people are certainly good for a certain things: Ideas? Sure. Concepts? Of course. Writing the code to see those in the latest "in" language? Not probably so much.
With numbers that drop down in the "upper age" bracket, it means to me that there is simply less of the work to go around for these guys. The visionary guys at the very top of the pyramid? I don't think that age will see those folks go, the kids at the fat end of the pyramid doing the coding, yeah, I can totally see how the more mature folks will neither WANT to do those tasks, or probably be cutting edge enough to do them.
I don't really see this as too bad a thing. Heck, if I had work at Google under my belt, chances are that I would also be looking to move on at some point and make a squillion dollars by taking that experience and showing another company how to do it with their company.
Companies get their panties in a bunch. We laugh at them. Film at 11.
It's actually an interesting insight into the bureaucratic mindset of the average idiot.
Pork Boss: Smith! Get over here now! There is some company using a slogan on some food that's really similar to ours! Smith: Uhhh, boss, I don't think that Unicorn meat really exis... Pork Boss: What? Smith! NOW! Get our lawyers on the horn! This can't go ahead! Smith: Uhhhh, right on it boss.
*ringing phone* Pork Lawyer: WHAT? Oh my, I will draft a letter IMMEDIATELY, this can't go on, who owns Unicorn Meat anyhow? Do they have a strong lobby group? Smith: Uhhhh, again, I don't think that it's really real, I mean it's unicorn mea... Pork Lawyer: Nonsense! This is outrageous. I will have them by the balls on this one. The letter will be out in the afternoon mail run! *click* Suzie, send a bill to the Pork Board for a cease and desist. Slap on a few extra hours work too will ya darling? Cheers!
All that can now be heard is the soft sad crying of Common Sense in the corner.
exactly. all this will do is make people more paranoid, furthering the "state of fear" that they already foster and to quote: "without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances." in most instances?? get real.
But they want people scared and paranoid. Scared people are much more willing to trade personal freedoms for "relief" from the fear of the "bad people" out there.
At this point in time, I'd question whether they would fund anti matter weapons research. Tactically, do we really need a bigger boom than a nuke? I'd also imagine that anti-matter weapons would leave some nasty side effects hanging around after detonation.
Interesting to think about. Given that Cosmic Background Radiation is leftovers from the last time that there was a lot of matter/anti-matter colliding, the chances are that there would indeed be effects hanging around.
As to the size of the explosion, it is not a good thing to leave a smoking crater where your enemy used to be. You actually want to kill/turn any resistance, and then acquire resources and spoils of war. Secondly, it would be quite pointless to make a bomb so big that it wipes out the entire planet. Talk about a Pyrric victory.
You can make a civilization sized crater with anything. TNT, a nuke or anti-matter. It just has to be big enough. There is no reason why an anti-matter bomb would leave a bigger crater than any other type of bomb dropped. Lastly, you can make a bomb big enough to wipe out the entire planet out of anything - just in this case, the amount of energy expelled through the use of anti-matter means that the bomb itself is smaller while giving out the same explosive force.
You do understand that a 1 kiloton nuke means that it is a nuke that has the exploding power of 1000 tons* of TNT right? You can have a 1 kiloton bomb made of anything. TNT, Nukes or Antimatter - they all have the same explosive power.
* To be more precise, the exploding power of a kiloton while being close to 1000 tons of TNT isn't exact, so the current day measure is to say 10^12 calories equivalent (which is roughly the same).
Nothing to see here, this seems just like any of the projects that seem to go ahead at my work, so move along, nothing to see. No rubber-necking please.
There's nobody interested in paying for Moon or Mars projects anymore it seems.
Why be interested in that, when you can keep fighting in silly wars that no-one can win, when you can keep bailing out finance sectors and car manufacturers even though their business models clearly got them into trouble in the first place.
Sorry, my rant toggle must have been on, and I didn't notice.
I still think we should decrease our use of energy, instead of inventing new ways to increase its production.
Dr. Pekka Paisti
You are right. And naive.
Hmmm, what a funny two first posts. Both are totally correct, yet at polar opposites.
Yes, we should decrease the amount of power we use. I totally agree, yet, the chances of getting the average consumer to actually do so, keep dreaming. As long as people keep coming up with power hungry devices that people want (read: air conditioners, plasma TVs, faster PCs and just about every other imaginable device), people will in fact keep buying them. Will they pay vastly larger sums for them if they are power efficient? Unlikely, some might, most won't. Will they put up with lower/smaller/decreased functionality? Again, some might, most won't.
I totally support using less power (my own electricity bill for example comes from 100% wind energy, which costs a good deal more than normal coal fired here in Australia) but I welcome any steps that are taken to make the overall impact of the "sheep consumers" less on the environment.
The firing mechanism which was meant to fire a bullet into the asteroid malfunctioned. They're just hoping it picked up enough residue.
True that. I wonder however, seeing as they are thinking that it's a tiny amount of residue rather than what they really wanted, whether it will be tainted on it's re-entry and landing process.
Not to mock their efforts, it's utterly amazing what they have done, and on what sort of budget, but I just hope that it doesn't go tits-up at the last moment for them with this - or worse yet, they do some research, and it ends up being called into doubt due to possible contamination.
Yes, changing the units will most definitely help. The units we should change to are the ones we already use here above the border: liters per 100 km. Going from 20 L/100k to 15 L/100k saves just as much as going from 10 L/100k to 5 L/100k. In most people's lives, the distance you need to travel is constant, not the amount of money you have to spend on fuel, so fuel per distance is much more logical anyway.
*sigh*
Yes, the number of liters of fuel saved IS indeed the same, but going from 20L/100 to 15L/100 is a 25% reduction in fuel consumption, going from 10L/100 to 5L/100 is a 50% fuel reduction.
While your overall statement is correct, your arguments behind it seem either a little flawed or vague with direction. It is like selling an item that says it will save you 1 liter of fuel per 100kms. It has no context in how much fuel that will save, as it doesn't say how much fuel you use. Will it save 1L in a normal car? Will it save 1L in a lorry? Will it save 1L in a road train?
Yup, the average person is mathematically still an infant (or has forgotten all they learned and reverted back to infancy).
What they need to start doing is standardizing how they mark vehicles fuel consumption. Here in Australia, they label most electric appliances with a sticker in the shops that shows you just how much energy it consumed compared to other similar alliances. It's not perfect, but it's a start in the right direction, and it has been running for a long time.
Perhaps they could start doing something like this with cars?
Slashdot Mirror
--
I don't break for ACs
Do you mean "brake" rather than "break"?
:)
Cause if you don't, you might want to say you don't break for anyone. I haven't seen anyone just break for someone else before
I work at Woolworths (The parent company), and I really wonder if I start blowing my trumpet about this, will:
a) Anyone in management have a clue what this means.
b) Anyone be able to track down someone who can actually DO something about it.
c) (sadly) whether anyone will actually care enough to make a change for the better.
Tomorrow morning's agenda...
Oil what?
I thought there was an agreement to refer to this as a "Whoopsie Daisy".
It also means a lower angle on the ocean, which may well mean that it's harder to see the oil.
I totally agree with the points you made. The obvious thing of course is to simply get a higher angle, by either getting onto an object on the beach, or by getting onto the roof/upper deck of a boat you are in. Sixty five feet really isn't that far.
Is it as good as getting a shot from 1 foot of the object? Not at all. I totally agree, but I can sort of understand why they don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry to go bungling around booms and things meant to STOP the oil.
Great for Journalism? No.
Great for folks wanting to brush this under the carpet. Yes.
Great for the cleanup/relief effort? Hopefully.
But will it go into your ear, or will it be injected via a syringe and live in your gut is the question?
Why arrest them in a big show though? Usually spies are expelled not arrested.
If you were leading a TEN YEAR investigation, wouldn't YOUR office be demanding some publicity at the end of it to justify ten years of spending on your salaries, the investigative costs and so forth?
The best way to deflect a financial inquiry is to point at the TV where your "heroes" are out there making your country safe.
*sips coffee*
I hereby demand that all banks wishing to do business with me keep all of their monies in my mattress! This is not a request!
That doesn't work so well unless you, like China, have something that everyone wants. China has cheap labor and makes a bunch of stuff. Oh, and they have a HUGE market. Hence everyone wants to do business with them. What do you have to offer that all the banks want?
The Aussies (and Aussie worshippers) have taken over.
That's not a story.... THIS is a story.
Now, go put the kettle on...
Bugs are one thing; every written piece of software contains bugs. But when you intentionally code the program to fail at certain intervals you are cheating the customers.
Doesn't that also fling the doors WIDE open for damages suits to be filed against the company for losses in the clients companies?
Funniest part of this post: Get our lawyers on the horn!
Sorry heh, that's the time I lived in London coming out :)
Is it? Or do the old-timers just not get new technology?
Besides, most people over 40 don't want to spend 60hours+/week at work.
It depends on the sort of work that is available. Older people are certainly good for a certain things: Ideas? Sure. Concepts? Of course. Writing the code to see those in the latest "in" language? Not probably so much.
With numbers that drop down in the "upper age" bracket, it means to me that there is simply less of the work to go around for these guys. The visionary guys at the very top of the pyramid? I don't think that age will see those folks go, the kids at the fat end of the pyramid doing the coding, yeah, I can totally see how the more mature folks will neither WANT to do those tasks, or probably be cutting edge enough to do them.
I don't really see this as too bad a thing. Heck, if I had work at Google under my belt, chances are that I would also be looking to move on at some point and make a squillion dollars by taking that experience and showing another company how to do it with their company.
Companies get their panties in a bunch. We laugh at them. Film at 11.
It's actually an interesting insight into the bureaucratic mindset of the average idiot.
Pork Boss: Smith! Get over here now! There is some company using a slogan on some food that's really similar to ours!
Smith: Uhhh, boss, I don't think that Unicorn meat really exis...
Pork Boss: What? Smith! NOW! Get our lawyers on the horn! This can't go ahead!
Smith: Uhhhh, right on it boss.
*ringing phone*
Pork Lawyer: WHAT? Oh my, I will draft a letter IMMEDIATELY, this can't go on, who owns Unicorn Meat anyhow? Do they have a strong lobby group?
Smith: Uhhhh, again, I don't think that it's really real, I mean it's unicorn mea...
Pork Lawyer: Nonsense! This is outrageous. I will have them by the balls on this one. The letter will be out in the afternoon mail run! *click* Suzie, send a bill to the Pork Board for a cease and desist. Slap on a few extra hours work too will ya darling? Cheers!
All that can now be heard is the soft sad crying of Common Sense in the corner.
exactly. all this will do is make people more paranoid, furthering the "state of fear" that they already foster and to quote: "without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances." in most instances?? get real.
But they want people scared and paranoid. Scared people are much more willing to trade personal freedoms for "relief" from the fear of the "bad people" out there.
NASA is not a scientific organization. It is a political organization.
New boss. Same as the old boss.
At this point in time, I'd question whether they would fund anti matter weapons research. Tactically, do we really need a bigger boom than a nuke? I'd also imagine that anti-matter weapons would leave some nasty side effects hanging around after detonation.
Interesting to think about. Given that Cosmic Background Radiation is leftovers from the last time that there was a lot of matter/anti-matter colliding, the chances are that there would indeed be effects hanging around.
As to the size of the explosion, it is not a good thing to leave a smoking crater where your enemy used to be. You actually want to kill/turn any resistance, and then acquire resources and spoils of war. Secondly, it would be quite pointless to make a bomb so big that it wipes out the entire planet. Talk about a Pyrric victory.
You can make a civilization sized crater with anything. TNT, a nuke or anti-matter. It just has to be big enough. There is no reason why an anti-matter bomb would leave a bigger crater than any other type of bomb dropped. Lastly, you can make a bomb big enough to wipe out the entire planet out of anything - just in this case, the amount of energy expelled through the use of anti-matter means that the bomb itself is smaller while giving out the same explosive force.
You do understand that a 1 kiloton nuke means that it is a nuke that has the exploding power of 1000 tons* of TNT right? You can have a 1 kiloton bomb made of anything. TNT, Nukes or Antimatter - they all have the same explosive power.
* To be more precise, the exploding power of a kiloton while being close to 1000 tons of TNT isn't exact, so the current day measure is to say 10^12 calories equivalent (which is roughly the same).
Nothing to see here, this seems just like any of the projects that seem to go ahead at my work, so move along, nothing to see. No rubber-necking please.
I'm glad I didn't get one!
That's okay. Google got it for you anyhow.
*sips coffee*
There's nobody interested in paying for Moon or Mars projects anymore it seems.
Why be interested in that, when you can keep fighting in silly wars that no-one can win, when you can keep bailing out finance sectors and car manufacturers even though their business models clearly got them into trouble in the first place.
Sorry, my rant toggle must have been on, and I didn't notice.
pirst fost!
this one is for super kawaii and the kawaii supers
Yer good kid, real good, but while I'm around, you'll always be second best... see?
He would sort this shit out quick smart!
About here is where some physicist jumps up and tells me everything I learned in the past is wrong and I should shut up and sit down.....
Yes. Sit down and shut up. Also, because you didn't pay attention the first time you learned it, I won't waste time explaining it again.
*smirk*
*sips coffee*
I still think we should decrease our use of energy, instead of inventing new ways to increase its production. Dr. Pekka Paisti
You are right. And naive.
Hmmm, what a funny two first posts. Both are totally correct, yet at polar opposites.
Yes, we should decrease the amount of power we use. I totally agree, yet, the chances of getting the average consumer to actually do so, keep dreaming. As long as people keep coming up with power hungry devices that people want (read: air conditioners, plasma TVs, faster PCs and just about every other imaginable device), people will in fact keep buying them. Will they pay vastly larger sums for them if they are power efficient? Unlikely, some might, most won't. Will they put up with lower/smaller/decreased functionality? Again, some might, most won't.
I totally support using less power (my own electricity bill for example comes from 100% wind energy, which costs a good deal more than normal coal fired here in Australia) but I welcome any steps that are taken to make the overall impact of the "sheep consumers" less on the environment.
The firing mechanism which was meant to fire a bullet into the asteroid malfunctioned. They're just hoping it picked up enough residue.
True that. I wonder however, seeing as they are thinking that it's a tiny amount of residue rather than what they really wanted, whether it will be tainted on it's re-entry and landing process.
Not to mock their efforts, it's utterly amazing what they have done, and on what sort of budget, but I just hope that it doesn't go tits-up at the last moment for them with this - or worse yet, they do some research, and it ends up being called into doubt due to possible contamination.
Yes, changing the units will most definitely help. The units we should change to are the ones we already use here above the border: liters per 100 km. Going from 20 L/100k to 15 L/100k saves just as much as going from 10 L/100k to 5 L/100k. In most people's lives, the distance you need to travel is constant, not the amount of money you have to spend on fuel, so fuel per distance is much more logical anyway.
*sigh*
Yes, the number of liters of fuel saved IS indeed the same, but going from 20L/100 to 15L/100 is a 25% reduction in fuel consumption, going from 10L/100 to 5L/100 is a 50% fuel reduction.
While your overall statement is correct, your arguments behind it seem either a little flawed or vague with direction. It is like selling an item that says it will save you 1 liter of fuel per 100kms. It has no context in how much fuel that will save, as it doesn't say how much fuel you use. Will it save 1L in a normal car? Will it save 1L in a lorry? Will it save 1L in a road train?
Yup, the average person is mathematically still an infant (or has forgotten all they learned and reverted back to infancy).
What they need to start doing is standardizing how they mark vehicles fuel consumption. Here in Australia, they label most electric appliances with a sticker in the shops that shows you just how much energy it consumed compared to other similar alliances. It's not perfect, but it's a start in the right direction, and it has been running for a long time.
Perhaps they could start doing something like this with cars?