Face book users buy the service with their data, which Facebook uses in exchange form money from their other customers. You seem to think consumer and customer aren't related, and that they only think someone can buy something with is money.
A customer (sometimes known as a client, buyer, or purchaser) is the recipient of a good, service, product, or idea, obtained from a seller, vendor, or supplier for a monetary or other valuable consideration.
" they waited too long to go digital" They where based on using chemicals and machines to develop photos and creating film. You can't take that digital.
All he is saying that it's gutting the iuddle class. all thos epople moved on to lower paying jobs. There are fewer and fewer jobs for skilled workers and more and more unskilled 'box packers' jobs. Think about his example, it goes farther than Kodak company. How many photo processing places are left? very few, most of which are run by 1 person with a machine. photo mat booths?
Technology is replacing people, and the people to make that new technology is a LOT fewer then the people displaced. This can e a good thing, or a disaster. If we can get past the socialism scare mongers and thinking long term, this is a good thing for all people. If we keep driving to an unregulated free market with no support this will be very bad,
Incorrect. You're statment have been shown to be wrong. Your bias is forcing you to clinging to a narrative that has been proven to be false. Please learn and apply critical thinking skills.
"medieval warm period and the roman warm period to both be warmer." In one section of the globe, not the global temperature.
"Temperatures in some regions matched or exceeded recent temperatures in these regions, but globally the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than recent global temperatures" Bold by me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
"Theophrastus (371 – c. 287 BC) wrote that date trees could grow in Greece if planted, but could not set fruit there. This is the same situation as today, and suggests that southern Aegean mean summer temperatures in the fourth and fifth centuries BC were within a degree of modern temperatures. This and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek climate during that period was basically the same as it was around 2000 AD. Dendrochronological evidence from wood found at the Parthenon shows variability of climate in the fifth century BC resembling the modern pattern of variation.[3] Tree rings from Italy in the late third century BC indicate a period of mild conditions in the area at the time that Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
"at a rate far far less than predicted by all your models." Patently False. They aren't rising as fast as the worse case scenarios the media likes to report. They are rising within model predictions.
"Nor have they risen to temperatures that exceed recent human history past" irrelevant. Then rise in the past was do to different reasons. WHAT EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF CLIMATOLOGY are talking about is energy trapped by excess CO2.
" Dismissed global warming that transpired on other celestrial bodies in our solar system during the same time."OK, you are just waving your ignorance arounbd. A) If you are implying the warming is from an extrenal source, say in increase in the out put of the SUns energy, it would apply to every single body in the solar system in accordance to the inverse square law. Other body warming is NOT happenign on all bodies, and where it does happen there is no correlation to it happening on few other bodies. B) IF you are implying there is an increase in the energy output of the sun, we would know becasue we measure it pretty accuratly. The rising trend does NOT correlate with the Suns activity.
" Has a habit of touting every storm or weather incident (even earthquakes) as proof of global warming, " um, that's the media, not scientists who are experts in that field of study. However, there will be an increase in the energy of events. This can be stronger storms, or more storms,. The bottom line: more energy expressed over time.
"we did have some of the hottest years in recent record during the late 90's. That really nice and I"m sure that makes sense in your little box of ignorance, sadly it shows you are completely ignorant and just restating the same bull crap Fox has fed your simpleton mind.
"We have also had some of the coldest incidents in recorded history in recent years as well." As expect by climate change models, dumb ass. The term climate change is older the global warming, BTW.
Facts: 1) Visible light comes from the sun. 2) Visible light creates IR when it strikes something 3) CO2* absorbs IR energy 4) We put out far more CO2 then can be absorbed by the pre-industrial climate cycles.
So tell me: What's happening to the extra absorbed energy id it is impacting the climate?
There is a reason you echo chamber only cherry picks 'facts' and never talks about the actual science.
*This applies to other gases as well, but CO2 is the biggest one we emit at this time.
Twilight is a bad novel ofrm pretty much every technical view.
Really, bad. There are 4 stones..I mean position: There is good art, there is bad art, there is art you like and there is art you don't like.
It's perfectly fine to like bad art, but that doesn't make it good art. I like a lot of bad movies. Of course, we should keep this is context of the type of art. Sculpture that couldn't have race, gender, and had to withstand extreme temperature swings and bot weigh too much, and show to anyone who look at it that it represented a people went to space. . Inside those parameters, and considering the type of art at the time, it's a technically good piece. It captures exactly what it's intent to capture was. Doesn't mean you have to like it.
So, if you don't like art, fine. Talk about why you don't like it, talk about it's technical merits. Don't go around and say its not art.
Sadly, I still see developers not testing, and are practically afraid of writing test scripts. It's not news to you or me, but these reminders are important for newer generations, especially to the 'I want to do it because it makes money and I couldn't care less about computers otherwise' programmers. AKA webmasters!
"and it will change the balance of political power tremendously." no it wont, becasue the people in power will be the ones that: A) needed to supply industrial level energy B) buy the successful companies with off grid technology. Then probably 'give it to you' in exchange for a long term contract.
"whereas a business invests $x million" yes, money they write off(you and me pay for it),and NO company's invests 100 million hoping to make 100 million. the may invest 10 million for that, and corporation will do what ever they can to get subsidies to pay for it, and many do. So they get us to pay for it, and then they keep the profits.
"$100M in revenue for an activist group" depends on the group, and in no way accounts for overhead.
You sir, are ignorant in corporate finance, revenue generation, and costs for non profits.
In short, calm down. If you can take tie to make bold letters, then you can take time to think they way you are spreading a message.
"for people well off to afford them (e.g. most greenies" wrong. "you are contributing to wealth inequality. " also, wrong.
" development was not cut off from nuclear power technologies by these various rich greenie groups" different subject, and not actually most people who want clean energy alternatives. Those groups are general anti corporation and sciences.
False, you sell it back at cost, they use it and the sell you energy later. YOUR cost balance out, but it's not like they don't resell the electricity you sell them.
Frankly, the idea that it's backup is something the Power companies pushes to keep people more sympathetic to their cries of 'not making enough money' and/or 'It cost too much'
Not broken,. but antiquated in design and thinking. Frankly no system should be built or replaced with anything but what they need for power to flow safely in both directions.
Slashdot Mirror
Face book users buy the service with their data, which Facebook uses in exchange form money from their other customers. You seem to think consumer and customer aren't related, and that they only think someone can buy something with is money.
A customer (sometimes known as a client, buyer, or purchaser) is the recipient of a good, service, product, or idea, obtained from a seller, vendor, or supplier for a monetary or other valuable consideration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer
Bolded for the stupid.
You sir, should read some books
Or he is thinking of the Kodak Disk 4000. Not floppy, but it was a type of disk.
" they waited too long to go digital"
They where based on using chemicals and machines to develop photos and creating film. You can't take that digital.
All he is saying that it's gutting the iuddle class. all thos epople moved on to lower paying jobs.
There are fewer and fewer jobs for skilled workers and more and more unskilled 'box packers' jobs.
Think about his example, it goes farther than Kodak company. How many photo processing places are left? very few, most of which are run by 1 person with a machine. photo mat booths?
Technology is replacing people, and the people to make that new technology is a LOT fewer then the people displaced.
This can e a good thing, or a disaster. If we can get past the socialism scare mongers and thinking long term, this is a good thing for all people. If we keep driving to an unregulated free market with no support this will be very bad,
Wrong. Kodak was a film company, not a camera manufacturer.
Until we invent a meta material that allows us to manipulate gravity, OF COURSE it's 'shifting' the dimensions. G'ah.
not an accurate example of how it works.
Incorrect. You're statment have been shown to be wrong. Your bias is forcing you to clinging to a narrative that has been proven to be false. Please learn and apply critical thinking skills.
"medieval warm period and the roman warm period to both be warmer."
In one section of the globe, not the global temperature.
"Temperatures in some regions matched or exceeded recent temperatures in these regions, but globally the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than recent global temperatures"
Bold by me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
"Theophrastus (371 – c. 287 BC) wrote that date trees could grow in Greece if planted, but could not set fruit there. This is the same situation as today, and suggests that southern Aegean mean summer temperatures in the fourth and fifth centuries BC were within a degree of modern temperatures. This and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek climate during that period was basically the same as it was around 2000 AD. Dendrochronological evidence from wood found at the Parthenon shows variability of climate in the fifth century BC resembling the modern pattern of variation.[3] Tree rings from Italy in the late third century BC indicate a period of mild conditions in the area at the time that Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
"at a rate far far less than predicted by all your models."
Patently False. They aren't rising as fast as the worse case scenarios the media likes to report. They are rising within model predictions.
"Nor have they risen to temperatures that exceed recent human history past"
irrelevant. Then rise in the past was do to different reasons. WHAT EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF CLIMATOLOGY are talking about is energy trapped by excess CO2.
" Dismissed global warming that transpired on other celestrial bodies in our solar system during the same time."OK, you are just waving your ignorance arounbd.
A) If you are implying the warming is from an extrenal source, say in increase in the out put of the SUns energy, it would apply to every single body in the solar system in accordance to the inverse square law. Other body warming is NOT happenign on all bodies, and where it does happen there is no correlation to it happening on few other bodies.
B) IF you are implying there is an increase in the energy output of the sun, we would know becasue we measure it pretty accuratly. The rising trend does NOT correlate with the Suns activity.
" Has a habit of touting every storm or weather incident (even earthquakes) as proof of global warming, "
um, that's the media, not scientists who are experts in that field of study. However, there will be an increase in the energy of events. This can be stronger storms, or more storms,. The bottom line: more energy expressed over time.
"we did have some of the hottest years in recent record during the late 90's.
That really nice and I"m sure that makes sense in your little box of ignorance, sadly it shows you are completely ignorant and just restating the same bull crap Fox has fed your simpleton mind.
"We have also had some of the coldest incidents in recorded history in recent years as well."
As expect by climate change models, dumb ass. The term climate change is older the global warming, BTW.
Facts:
1) Visible light comes from the sun.
2) Visible light creates IR when it strikes something
3) CO2* absorbs IR energy
4) We put out far more CO2 then can be absorbed by the pre-industrial climate cycles.
So tell me: What's happening to the extra absorbed energy id it is impacting the climate?
There is a reason you echo chamber only cherry picks 'facts' and never talks about the actual science.
*This applies to other gases as well, but CO2 is the biggest one we emit at this time.
The US flag is a work of art.
That's not what he is saying, Don't go around saying it's not art becasue you don't like it.
That's all.
Twilight is a bad novel ofrm pretty much every technical view.
Really, bad.
There are 4 stones..I mean position:
There is good art, there is bad art, there is art you like and there is art you don't like.
It's perfectly fine to like bad art, but that doesn't make it good art. I like a lot of bad movies.
Of course, we should keep this is context of the type of art.
Sculpture that couldn't have race, gender, and had to withstand extreme temperature swings and bot weigh too much, and show to anyone who look at it that it represented a people went to space.
.
Inside those parameters, and considering the type of art at the time, it's a technically good piece. It captures exactly what it's intent to capture was.
Doesn't mean you have to like it.
So, if you don't like art, fine. Talk about why you don't like it, talk about it's technical merits. Don't go around and say its not art.
In the correct context, it would be art. This is not the correct context, so no.
Really, stop discussing art because you don't know jack shit.
I disagree. It's perfect for what they were representing.
"I'd have been ashamed to admit creating it."
I'd be amazed if you could create it at all.
The US flag is a piece of art.
Any Flag, really.
no. MS and Apple? Yes.
Intel will continue to make chips.
Sadly, I still see developers not testing, and are practically afraid of writing test scripts.
It's not news to you or me, but these reminders are important for newer generations, especially to the 'I want to do it because it makes money and I couldn't care less about computers otherwise' programmers. AKA webmasters!
And you save all that money on not using proper capitalization.
Seriously, if you want people to read your comment, at least try.
" you will have to lose thing like the 60 inch tv and always running the ac but it can be done."
The trick is create power and let us have out toys.
"and it will change the balance of political power tremendously."
no it wont, becasue the people in power will be the ones that:
A) needed to supply industrial level energy
B) buy the successful companies with off grid technology. Then probably 'give it to you' in exchange for a long term contract.
" And, of course, most tax revenue is paid by the rich(-ish)."
bwahahahhaha!
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0
"whereas a business invests $x million"
yes, money they write off(you and me pay for it),and NO company's invests 100 million hoping to make 100 million. the may invest 10 million for that, and corporation will do what ever they can to get subsidies to pay for it, and many do. So they get us to pay for it, and then they keep the profits.
"$100M in revenue for an activist group"
depends on the group, and in no way accounts for overhead.
You sir, are ignorant in corporate finance, revenue generation, and costs for non profits.
In short, calm down. If you can take tie to make bold letters, then you can take time to think they way you are spreading a message.
"for people well off to afford them (e.g. most greenies"
wrong.
"you are contributing to wealth inequality. "
also, wrong.
" development was not cut off from nuclear power technologies by these various rich greenie groups"
different subject, and not actually most people who want clean energy alternatives.
Those groups are general anti corporation and sciences.
False, you sell it back at cost, they use it and the sell you energy later. YOUR cost balance out, but it's not like they don't resell the electricity you sell them.
Frankly, the idea that it's backup is something the Power companies pushes to keep people more sympathetic to their cries of 'not making enough money' and/or 'It cost too much'
Not broken,. but antiquated in design and thinking. Frankly no system should be built or replaced with anything but what they need for power to flow safely in both directions.
becasue they only thing in the world that matters is money. Let burn the fucker down, it's cheaper that way!
Selfish git.