The cost of wind turbines has doubled in the past three years due to increasing demand and commodity prices. Of course that's less than the increase in electricity prices, so it's cheaper relatively.
However, I don't think oil/electricity price is the sole or even primary factor behind the renewables craze. Our government has had a '90% renewables target by 2025' for more than a year. ie, when oil was $70 a barrel.
There's a lot to do with public perception, and that's much more in favour of wind power nowadays.
Wait a minute. She didn't pay the GBP9.60 fare so she got charged an excess of GBP10? If your expected chance of getting caught is 0.5, then why would anyone ever buy a ticket?
Also, given that I've been checked maybe twice using public transport systems in various european cities, there's no way the chance is anywhere near 0.5.
And how many people would require all those specs? It's a diminishing returns case, where giving 2 possible specs is a huge improvement on the current situation, and little would be gained by going further.
Warrior: - Arms arena, prot raids
Druid healer: - Tree raids, 11/11/39 arena
Priest: - Shadow raids, 42/19/0 arena
Hunter: - BM raids, 0/41/20 arena
So you can take one spec for PvE and one for PvP. I'm pretty happy with that.
The main reason I ***ed out certain parts is because there's nothing to be gained by leaving personally identifiable info in there. I'm sure that anyone reading/. and with my ISP already knows what is going on. If anyone wanted to go to the effort I'm sure they could decipher the ****s, most easily by following the quote.
We had one of our ISPs cave to something similar. So I wrote this letter to the marketing director: (pardon the asterisks)
Dear Steve Jackson
I'm writing to express my concern over ******'s introduction of website filtering. I believe this sets a disturbing precedent for the continuing provision of internet services by *****. An ISP's role is not to regulate what I can use my internet connection for. An ISP's role is to provide me with an internet connection, which **** has been excellent at doing. The aim of 'stopping objectionable practices' is a noble one. However, problems soon become apparent when one considers that my interpretation of objectionable behaviour is undoubtedly different from *****'s interpretation. The logical conclusion to this line of reasoning, is that at some point in the future when I want to use my internet connection for something, **** will decide that it knows best, and stop me from so doing. This quote from David Lane (Director of Society For Promotion Of Community Standards Inc.) is particularly disturbing: "... [The society] wants the filtering extended beyond child porn content to include the blocking of all hard core pornographty sites and those promoting "objectionable" content defined in secion 3(2)(a-f) of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 (sexual violence, bestiality, etc).". It illustrates the problem rather well. I have used the internet for pornography, and I don't expect to be blocked from doing so in the future. If I look at pornography more hardcore than the limits imposed on free-to-air television, this doesn't make my behaviour 'wrong', and I certainly don't expect **** to impose its standards on my behaviour. If I do something illegal, then that's relevant for the Police, not a coporation. Additionally, the concept that a list maintained by the Internal Affairs Office will be capable of cataloguing all objectionable sites on the internet is flawed if not outright hilarious. There are various software packages available which attempt to keep the internet 'safe' for younger users. I am sure that, combined with actual parenting, these tools are far better suited to keeping children from accessing inappropriate content. I should take this moment to clarify that my primary concern is not that I may soon be unable to access pornography with my **** account. Instead, I believe that once this form of filtering has been introduced for one honourable reason, it will only be a matter of time before the practice of filtering is extended to other aspects of the internet. It is widely publicized (although not necessarily accurate) that 'peer to peer' (p2p) services consume a disproportionate amount of bandwidth accross the internet as a whole. I extend from this assumption that some time in the future **** may be in favour of blocking p2p services in order to extract more customers from the same amount of bandwidth. This would have a real and noticeable affect on my internet behaviour. There are other scenarios in which **** might decide to filter my internet use. For example, I'm sure **** wants to retain their customers, and so logically it would be a sensible idea to block all competing ISP's websites. Or, if there is a damning report about ***** on a news website, it would be very easy to block any user from accessing that website. I'm not suggesting that **** does or would do any of these measures, but the only way I can be certain of this is for **** not to regulate my internet behaviour in any way. The knee-jerk reaction to this news would be for me to cancel my **** account. Instead I'm going to post this letter on a few popular **** forums, and raise general public awareness of ****'s actions. I will continue to closely monitor ****'s actions, and may switch ISPs if it continues with this course of action. Yours Sincerely
I had exactly the same experience with my girlfriend and media player. I bought us a new computer and brought over her old songs. Half of them didn't work, and she didn't blame windows, she blamed herself for clicking the 'make my music secure' box when she installed them.
Then I showed her this programme called 'pidgin' and she's slowly being taught to hate MS. Next thing I know she'll be posting rants on slashdot.
Funnily enough, if you're on the list you can write to them and request to be removed. That seemed far too simple. So I wrote to them and asked to be included on the list. I didn't get a response:(
I despise the tone of New Scientist articles these days. They're as fanatical about convincing the non-believers as any Christians I've come into contact with.
You know what's really sad? This scam got significant airtime on one of our 'news-magazine' shows. (Like 60 Minutes I guess, but daily and only 30).
They interviewed a University Professor who utterly confused everybody (who should have just said "energy in > energy out"), and ended the segment on a "We'll keep an eye on this new technology" note. It was disgusting
My (small) company went on a security blitz a while ago and checked that everyone was running a 'good' virus programme at home. Neither Avast nor AVG were on the required list, so I lied and said I was running Symantec (What we use in the office).
I browse with noscript firefox, and I'm sure as hell not the biggest security risk when my colleague's teenage kids use the same computer they work from home on.
So yes, plenty of ignorant people buy virus software.
In other words "Only 1% of privacy officers surveyed didn't think their own privacy mattered, whereas a massive 7% of marketeers don't care about their own privacy"
I also risk my life daily by riding to work on a (push) bike. I don't take it quite that far though, and merely invert the offending car's rear view mirror once I catch up to them in the inevitable traffic.
It's non-destructive, hopefully gets the point accross, and if anyone challenges me on it I can reply 'I'm just making sure you see me this time'.
Certainly more gameplay and a decent storyline would make it a better game. But sadly, fancy graphics will probably sell more on opening day. (See spiderman sequels)
So true! And once you get to 80, there's no point in getting gear then either. After all, it'll be obsoleted by the next expansion and the level to 90.
It brings back memories of watching porn in Poland dubbed by one male with a thick russian accent. We couldn't understand a word they said, but it was the funniest thing we'd seen in a while.
Slashdot Mirror
The cost of wind turbines has doubled in the past three years due to increasing demand and commodity prices. Of course that's less than the increase in electricity prices, so it's cheaper relatively.
However, I don't think oil/electricity price is the sole or even primary factor behind the renewables craze. Our government has had a '90% renewables target by 2025' for more than a year. ie, when oil was $70 a barrel.
There's a lot to do with public perception, and that's much more in favour of wind power nowadays.
(Written from an across the ditch viewpoint)
Wait a minute. She didn't pay the GBP9.60 fare so she got charged an excess of GBP10? If your expected chance of getting caught is 0.5, then why would anyone ever buy a ticket?
Also, given that I've been checked maybe twice using public transport systems in various european cities, there's no way the chance is anywhere near 0.5.
And how many people would require all those specs? It's a diminishing returns case, where giving 2 possible specs is a huge improvement on the current situation, and little would be gained by going further.
Warrior:
- Arms arena, prot raids
Druid healer:
- Tree raids, 11/11/39 arena
Priest:
- Shadow raids, 42/19/0 arena
Hunter:
- BM raids, 0/41/20 arena
So you can take one spec for PvE and one for PvP. I'm pretty happy with that.
Talent stables will allow you to freely switch between 2 specs.
Moderately funny, could try harder.
The main reason I ***ed out certain parts is because there's nothing to be gained by leaving personally identifiable info in there. I'm sure that anyone reading /. and with my ISP already knows what is going on. If anyone wanted to go to the effort I'm sure they could decipher the ****s, most easily by following the quote.
We had one of our ISPs cave to something similar. So I wrote this letter to the marketing director: (pardon the asterisks)
Dear Steve Jackson
I'm writing to express my concern over ******'s introduction of website filtering. I believe this sets a disturbing precedent for the continuing provision of internet services by *****.
An ISP's role is not to regulate what I can use my internet connection for. An ISP's role is to provide me with an internet connection, which **** has been excellent at doing.
The aim of 'stopping objectionable practices' is a noble one. However, problems soon become apparent when one considers that my interpretation of objectionable behaviour is undoubtedly different from *****'s interpretation. The logical conclusion to this line of reasoning, is that at some point in the future when I want to use my internet connection for something, **** will decide that it knows best, and stop me from so doing.
This quote from David Lane (Director of Society For Promotion Of Community Standards Inc.) is particularly disturbing: "... [The society] wants the filtering extended beyond child porn content to include the blocking of all hard core pornographty sites and those promoting "objectionable" content defined in secion 3(2)(a-f) of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 (sexual violence, bestiality, etc).".
It illustrates the problem rather well. I have used the internet for pornography, and I don't expect to be blocked from doing so in the future. If I look at pornography more hardcore than the limits imposed on free-to-air television, this doesn't make my behaviour 'wrong', and I certainly don't expect **** to impose its standards on my behaviour. If I do something illegal, then that's relevant for the Police, not a coporation.
Additionally, the concept that a list maintained by the Internal Affairs Office will be capable of cataloguing all objectionable sites on the internet is flawed if not outright hilarious.
There are various software packages available which attempt to keep the internet 'safe' for younger users. I am sure that, combined with actual parenting, these tools are far better suited to keeping children from accessing inappropriate content.
I should take this moment to clarify that my primary concern is not that I may soon be unable to access pornography with my **** account. Instead, I believe that once this form of filtering has been introduced for one honourable reason, it will only be a matter of time before the practice of filtering is extended to other aspects of the internet.
It is widely publicized (although not necessarily accurate) that 'peer to peer' (p2p) services consume a disproportionate amount of bandwidth accross the internet as a whole. I extend from this assumption that some time in the future **** may be in favour of blocking p2p services in order to extract more customers from the same amount of bandwidth. This would have a real and noticeable affect on my internet behaviour.
There are other scenarios in which **** might decide to filter my internet use. For example, I'm sure **** wants to retain their customers, and so logically it would be a sensible idea to block all competing ISP's websites. Or, if there is a damning report about ***** on a news website, it would be very easy to block any user from accessing that website.
I'm not suggesting that **** does or would do any of these measures, but the only way I can be certain of this is for **** not to regulate my internet behaviour in any way.
The knee-jerk reaction to this news would be for me to cancel my **** account. Instead I'm going to post this letter on a few popular **** forums, and raise general public awareness of ****'s actions. I will continue to closely monitor ****'s actions, and may switch ISPs if it continues with this course of action.
Yours Sincerely
I had exactly the same experience with my girlfriend and media player. I bought us a new computer and brought over her old songs. Half of them didn't work, and she didn't blame windows, she blamed herself for clicking the 'make my music secure' box when she installed them.
Then I showed her this programme called 'pidgin' and she's slowly being taught to hate MS. Next thing I know she'll be posting rants on slashdot.
Here's a list of terrorist organisations and persons. http://www.police.govt.nz/service/counterterrorism/designated-terrorists.html. If you're on the list, you're a terrorist. So there's actually no definition, and as far as i can tell it's just an arbitrary list of people they don't like.
Funnily enough, if you're on the list you can write to them and request to be removed. That seemed far too simple. So I wrote to them and asked to be included on the list. I didn't get a response :(
I despise the tone of New Scientist articles these days. They're as fanatical about convincing the non-believers as any Christians I've come into contact with.
You know what's really sad? This scam got significant airtime on one of our 'news-magazine' shows. (Like 60 Minutes I guess, but daily and only 30).
They interviewed a University Professor who utterly confused everybody (who should have just said "energy in > energy out"), and ended the segment on a "We'll keep an eye on this new technology" note. It was disgusting
They said that about bird flu
My (small) company went on a security blitz a while ago and checked that everyone was running a 'good' virus programme at home. Neither Avast nor AVG were on the required list, so I lied and said I was running Symantec (What we use in the office).
I browse with noscript firefox, and I'm sure as hell not the biggest security risk when my colleague's teenage kids use the same computer they work from home on.
So yes, plenty of ignorant people buy virus software.
Carry it as carry-on luggage. Don't let it out of your sight. Prevention is better than a cure
There's a big difference between 99% and 93%.
In other words "Only 1% of privacy officers surveyed didn't think their own privacy mattered, whereas a massive 7% of marketeers don't care about their own privacy"
Sorry, I expect a decent level of intelligence from my trolls on slashdot.
D- 'Must try harder'
Indeed, and he should keep an eye out
I also risk my life daily by riding to work on a (push) bike. I don't take it quite that far though, and merely invert the offending car's rear view mirror once I catch up to them in the inevitable traffic.
It's non-destructive, hopefully gets the point accross, and if anyone challenges me on it I can reply 'I'm just making sure you see me this time'.
frequency of sex = 1/length of marriage?
Or so I hear, I'm happily in the unmarried stage
Cost to provide insurance != cost of payouts.
Your expected return from your insurance premiums are under 50% no matter what area of insurance.
Possibly better odds than a night in a casino though
How do IT people make their partys more interesting? Invite accountants
What? I've got this while trying to access Texas electricity usage info from outside the US. I hope the terrorists don't know how to use proxies.
I think most slashdotters are more paranoid about governmental control than communism currently
Certainly more gameplay and a decent storyline would make it a better game. But sadly, fancy graphics will probably sell more on opening day. (See spiderman sequels)
So true! And once you get to 80, there's no point in getting gear then either. After all, it'll be obsoleted by the next expansion and the level to 90.
Thanks for that Gavrilov link.
It brings back memories of watching porn in Poland dubbed by one male with a thick russian accent. We couldn't understand a word they said, but it was the funniest thing we'd seen in a while.