Do you think he deserves a chance or should his swastika tattoo forever punish him for a belief system he has rejected ?
Absolutely, he should have the opportunity to be free from future judgements based on values and beliefs he no longer holds. Especially so if he's trying to make up for past transgressions on his new found values. I just think it would make it easier to do so if he were to cover up the tattoo and wear clothes that don't give others the impression that he still carries the beliefs he has rejected.
Interesting, it seems where you live my choice of examples was a poor one. Maybe this one is extreme enough to make my point clear: If someone shows up to an interview for a position at the NAACP with a shaved head and swastika tattoos wearing a German SS style uniform, would he get the job? Should he? I think in this case the answer to both is no. He obviously wouldn't fit in with the culture of the organization and trying to ignore that would only cause disruption to the workplace environment.
True that isn't realistic example, but it illustrates the point that social groups, by definition, have some distinguishing characteristics (looks and/or behavior) and have a mostly coherent set of core values. I think using those to assess how well people will work (or socialize) together is acceptable as long as it is used carefully, erring on the side of tolerance when there is any doubt. Although, that is just my personal opinion based on how interactions between groups in the societies I have been exposed to are generally handled. Your society may have different views on this and that's okay.
From your description, it seems like Cape Town has a rather unique culture that is far more accepting of superficial differences than those of most other places. Actually it reminds me a bit of Austin Texas or Portland Oregon. Both of those cities have adopted the slogan "Keep $CITY_NAME Weird". Where I live (Southwest US) is more moderate in that regard. Some people walk around in a cowboy hat and boots with a six shooter strapped to their hip, but it isn't that common and there is a general expectation that how you dress is associated with your career. Although, we aren't anywhere near as restrictive as in (for example) New England. There, especially in New York, it's expected that anyone who is a professional will wear a suit and tie to work and keep up a similar style of appearance after hours.
Which of these approaches is better? I don't know of a good way to judge that. There isn't much correlation with successful economic outcomes. And it seems most people tend to prefer whichever system they're a part of, though the trend does seem to be toward more tolerance of personal style than away from it right now.
As far as the "power relationship" thing goes in employment, I think that is entirely dependent on the dynamics of the local economy. In places with a limited number of employers who dominate the market and little, if any, employee organization it is a serious issue and could warrant more stringent regulation on how they can discriminate during hiring. Other places are on the opposite end with the employers beholden to strong unions who set the hiring policies and, in that case, the unions should probably be required to accept any qualified member. But there's also a third option that I think doesn't require as much regulation. When there are a large number of employers with different corporate cultures and expectations and there is enough employee freedom to organize or not as they see fit, there are enough options that employers and employees are on roughly equal footing and strictly regulating their interactions isn't necessary.
I don't know if you can tell, but I'm more Libertarian than Anarchist. There are some interesting parallels and differences between those philosophies, that volumes could be written on (and have) without adequately addressing.
By the way, this has been a good conversation. It's not often that a discussion concerning topics people are passionate about can go on this long without flames erupting and name calling, especially on the internet.
So you're saying that if someone who likes to wear suits and ties goes to a metal concert, he wouldn't get funny looks or be judged negatively for it? Of course he'll be considered an outsider. He's giving off an image that represents something antithetical to values of the group. You're doing the same, or rather expressing views orthogonal to the group. It puts you at a disadvantage compared to those that conform to the image of the group they're trying to become a part of. I'm not advocating that you should change to fit in if it would betray your personal values, that would be hypocritical. Just understand that image is a useful tool in conveying what you value and that will be used to your advantage or disadvantage as it aligns or conflicts with the values of the groups you interact with.
Basically, all I'm saying is that you can't have your cake and eat it too.
In the narrow scope of job interviews for technical positions (without face to face customer interaction), judging solely on technical competence and phone etiquette probably is the best approach. Appearance isn't a critical factor in their job performance. Outside of that environment, society doesn't and shouldn't function that way. Personal appearance is a medium to convey a message, just like language. Society being blind to that would only limit a person's ability to express himself, not give him more freedom.
Instead, it seems what you want is to send a message with your appearance, but then expect people to ignore the parts that don't suit your goals. Communication just doesn't work that way. It's up to you to convey the message that you want others to understand. Either that or challenge the status quo (as you appear to be doing quite successfully) and accept that there may be some misunderstandings along the way (this is the part you seem to be objecting to).
By the way, I'm an engineer as well and have had long hair and a beard. No fancy colors though.
P.S. (pedantic statement) - In your prior post it's clincher, not clencher. Clinch - seal, close or end conclusively Clench - grasp or hold tightly, contract or tighten (esp. in reference to a body part) (Sorry, I had to get that out there. Any time I see those sorts of substitution errors in grammar, every muscle in my body involuntarily clenches)
So your answer is that he should sacrifice the most important and basic of human freedoms: the right of self expression, to fit a norm he doesn't agree with, or accept being discriminated against because of something that has exactly ZERO bearing on his abilities or the value he ads ?
You're making the assumption that AC disagrees with the norm in his profession, but essentially yes he should accept that that is the way the world works.
Do I think it would be better if everyone was judged with no regard for their appearance? Actually, no. That would be a horribly inefficient way for a society to run. Quick judgements are necessary and how people present themselves should be taken into consideration. It would be better, however, if we were better at discounting stereotypes based on inherent physical characteristics like race and sex. And I try all I can to understand and minimize any such unfounded biases in my own decisions. But it would be foolhardy to cultivate a personal style that is far outside the norm or one that is antithetical to the norm in my chosen profession and expect people not to consider it in their opinion of me.
If you think your appearance is holding you back professionally why don't you do something to help solve that problem? While it's true you can't do anything about your height or skin color, you could certainly cut your hair, shave and possibly dress more conservatively (even better, dress/look like those who have the position you want). It's up to you make sure you fit the image of who you want to be professionally.
If you really don't know where to start, here's a good article with some basic advice of how to dress yourself appropriately for your office environment.
Things change a bit if the usage is closer to 3hr/month and electricity is less expensive (I pay about 6 cents/kWhr for off peak power which is when lighting is needed most).
That said, I can also buy 60W equivalent CFLs for ~50 cents for a four pack at my local Costco after an instant rebate the (government supported) power company subsidizes. And at that price, who cares if they only last a few months and poison the landfills with mercury. I'm saving money dammit (never mind where the power company gets the money to pay for that subsidy ***cough***my taxes***cough***)
Seriously though, lighting efficiency just isn't that big of a problem and it will solve itself relatively soon. Most new construction is switching over to more efficient appliances and lighting anyway because low utility bills are a big selling point.
But that's precisely the point. There's so little value in comparing temperatures in everyday situations that just referring to the local melting/boiling point is more meaningful. It already takes things like air pressure and wind speed into account.
Of course there would be no way to do any calculations using that scale, but that's what an absolute scale like Kelvin or Rankine are for.
"Brutal conditions are expected in Detroit, which has had only five days in living memory when temperatures stayed below freezing all day." Really? No one knows the difference between 0 degree F and freezing?
Well, they didn't specify below freezing of what exactly. I mean, everyone knows Linseed Oil freezes around -4F, right?
Ooh, I just had a great idea!! We should stop using all of these arbitrary scales for temperature and start using melting/freezing/boiling points instead. For example: "It's gonna be hot one today, paraffin might start to melt." Instead of "It's going to be hot today, the high may reach 115F." Much easier to understand and there's no need for any conversions.
Nope, I'm just a data mining resource like everyone else. I've only talked with Google Play and Nexus device support, so maybe those groups are better or I just got lucky.
Actually, I've had nothing but good experiences with Google phone support. Every time I've called I got an intelligent person who actually seemed interested in trying to resolve my problem. The success rate on solving the problem immediately wasn't perfect, but they did follow up when a patch was eventually released that fixed the issue.
If esoteric references and deep gameplay are the criteria, Sandcastle Builder may be in the running. It has even been referred to as "the Dwarf Fortress of idle games"
And for extra geek credit, it's based off of a xkcd comic
I was on Cox, but the same thing applies. I cancelled cable TV about 2yrs ago and since then, my internet service quality has gone down (despite higher peak mbps claims) and the prices went up by ~40%. They're obviously targeting "cord cutters" because the prices of the bundle packages aren't increasing at the same rate. So I finally decided to drop Cox service entirely (at least officially, they still haven't disconnected analog cable TV after 2yrs)
Where I am DSL just isn't a competitive option, so I decided to up my phone internet plan to unlimited data and forgo any wired internet. I'm now paying $45/mo less between internet and phone and the 4G speeds are comparable to what I was getting on cable. The only drawback is that I have a limited amount of tethering data, so I use that sparingly and watch streaming video on the TV through my phone with a slimport adapter.
It seems crazy that wireless providers can offer a competitive service against a company that has a physical cable into the house, but that's the state of affairs when there's no competition in the market. Although I doubt my solution would be acceptable to a majority of the population, it's still a good indicator of how severe the problem is with wired ISPs abusing their monopolies.
If one of those "reasonable, rational people who did not purchase health insurance" gets hit by a bus and has the good luck to survive, then almost certainly it'll be everyone else paying for their treatment in one way or another.
If they are reasonable, rational people they should be able to afford the medical bills and nobody else has to pay anything for their treatment. The problem is when people don't get insured because they can't afford it. Of course in that case, they often can't afford the co-pays or deductible anyway and the rest of us end up paying no matter what choices they make about health insurance.
The only way to truly solve that problem is to allow hospitals (ER's in particular) to refuse treatment in some cases. But that isn't really a tenable solution in our society. Although, there is something we can do to reduce the severity of problem: Reduce Costs. If we can introduce competition on medical care costs, more people could afford their own care and the burden on everyone else is lessened.
For this sort of problem, insurance is a red herring. All it does is shift the costs to different groups.
It's not necessarily true that it will increase CO2 emissions. It will decrease peak demand which is almost universally provided by fossil fuel based systems in favor of base demand which has varying levels of emissions (near zero for hydro or nuclear, but relatively high for coal). Even if it's coal, the base power plants are quite a bit more efficient than the on-demand natural gas generators. If they weren't, we would just use the peak load generators for everything.
The company gets to benefit from the flattened power demand and the employees get to charge their cars. Seems like a win-win to me. The additional wear on the batteries is likely minimal considering that there will probably be many more than 6 electric cars in the lot.
I doubt $4800/yr in electricity cost savings will fully offset the charger installation and maintenance costs, but it could be close enough that it can be justified as a marketing tool or as a perk to draw employees.
I just recently got a Nexus 5 to replace my aging Nokia N9 and was amazed by the near complete lack of simple tools that don't want access to your data in return. For the N9, there were a ton of useful free open source tools provided by the community over at maemo.org. That community was great. Every time I thought that there was something that was missing or new capability I wanted, I'd look there and find an app that already exists or a group of people in the process of building it.
The contrast between that experience and the excessive commercialism of Android was startling. After looking around for a while I did find this Simple LED Widget that is just what it says and doesn't require any unnecessary permissions, but I had to sift through dozens of apps like the one in the TFA.
Is there anything even close to maemo.org for Android? I've heard some good things about F-Droid, but I haven't looked into it enough yet to know if it's the best option.
If they notice serious misconduct and have no recourse to safely report it, is it really wise to stay? Sure they may have to give up tenure, but if the entire organization is corrupt and dishonest something is going to happen and there's a good chance that they will be considered a party to it. Which is really more important, tenure or maintaining integrity and a good reputation?
Take a deep breath, put your lips around the whistle's mouthpiece and exhale forcefully?
Oh, you meant figuratively? I'd say, that the best way is to avoid working with people who are unethical so whistle blowing isn't necessary. If you do happen to end up in a situation that you know something untoward is going on, report it. But only report it to someone you trust will behave responsibly and has the authority to resolve the issue. If that person doesn't exist, start polishing up your resume and look around for a better place to work.
I guess it's just a case of different priorities then. I see all of those extra gizmos as unnecessary things that are more likely to break and cost more to repair. I don't think I've seen a broken window crank in a car less than 20yrs old and even then it's a $10 fix instead of $150 or more for a new window motor.
Still, with the prices dropping the way they have been it may only be a few years before it's a better investment for me as well.
I've been trying to price out electric car ROIs as well and I'm getting basically the opposite outcome. They all seem to be ~$7500 more after the tax credit than the comparable gas powered car (e.g. leaf vs versa S plus) and that pays for quite a lot of gasoline. I calculate ~65k miles worth at 35mpg and $4/gal and that doesn't include the electric power costs.
Using this calculator I keep coming up with a break even point of about 8 years. Cost of New Gas Car: $13970 Fuel Efficency of Gas Car: 35mpg Cost of Gas: $4/gal Cost of Electric Car: $21300 Cost of Electricity: $0.06/kWhr kWh/100 miles: 34 Annual Driving Distance: 10000mi
This is essentially what I came here to say. It just doesn't make financial sense at the prices they want for electric cars. The cost difference between an electric and the gasoline powered equivalent seems to be around $7500 (after the tax rebate) which makes the fuel cost break even point somewhere around 100k miles. It may drop to 80k miles if you consider reduced maintenance costs as well, but there's no avoiding that it'll take a majority of the life of the vehicle to reach the point of being a net gain. Then there's the opportunity cost of not being able to invest that $7500 elsewhere.
I've done the same sorts of calculations for home PV electric systems and they just don't quite make sense yet. I'll keep checking, though. I like the idea behind both solar and electric cars. They are moving in the right direction of increased efficiency and lower cost while fossil fuel based power will only keep getting more expensive.
I misread the name as USS Umwelt and I figured it appropriate that nobody could agree what OS it was running.
Also, the stealth features would have to be impressive: Enemy1: What's that on our radar? Enemy2: It looks like a US Navy Destroyer Enemy1: I don't know it could be a small fishing boat Enemy2: No, wait... how did a giant wooden rabbit get this far out to sea?
Because they have no idea what they're really paying for them.
Service plans that include a hidden phone subsidy are the standard (in the US), so most consumers only see the choice of a crappy dumbphone for "free" or pay $50 extra to get a near top of the line Apple/Android device (and Samsung has done well to become the first name in high end Android devices).
Slashdot Mirror
Do you think he deserves a chance or should his swastika tattoo forever punish him for a belief system he has rejected ?
Absolutely, he should have the opportunity to be free from future judgements based on values and beliefs he no longer holds. Especially so if he's trying to make up for past transgressions on his new found values. I just think it would make it easier to do so if he were to cover up the tattoo and wear clothes that don't give others the impression that he still carries the beliefs he has rejected.
Interesting, it seems where you live my choice of examples was a poor one. Maybe this one is extreme enough to make my point clear: If someone shows up to an interview for a position at the NAACP with a shaved head and swastika tattoos wearing a German SS style uniform, would he get the job? Should he? I think in this case the answer to both is no. He obviously wouldn't fit in with the culture of the organization and trying to ignore that would only cause disruption to the workplace environment.
True that isn't realistic example, but it illustrates the point that social groups, by definition, have some distinguishing characteristics (looks and/or behavior) and have a mostly coherent set of core values. I think using those to assess how well people will work (or socialize) together is acceptable as long as it is used carefully, erring on the side of tolerance when there is any doubt. Although, that is just my personal opinion based on how interactions between groups in the societies I have been exposed to are generally handled. Your society may have different views on this and that's okay.
From your description, it seems like Cape Town has a rather unique culture that is far more accepting of superficial differences than those of most other places. Actually it reminds me a bit of Austin Texas or Portland Oregon. Both of those cities have adopted the slogan "Keep $CITY_NAME Weird". Where I live (Southwest US) is more moderate in that regard. Some people walk around in a cowboy hat and boots with a six shooter strapped to their hip, but it isn't that common and there is a general expectation that how you dress is associated with your career. Although, we aren't anywhere near as restrictive as in (for example) New England. There, especially in New York, it's expected that anyone who is a professional will wear a suit and tie to work and keep up a similar style of appearance after hours.
Which of these approaches is better? I don't know of a good way to judge that. There isn't much correlation with successful economic outcomes. And it seems most people tend to prefer whichever system they're a part of, though the trend does seem to be toward more tolerance of personal style than away from it right now.
As far as the "power relationship" thing goes in employment, I think that is entirely dependent on the dynamics of the local economy. In places with a limited number of employers who dominate the market and little, if any, employee organization it is a serious issue and could warrant more stringent regulation on how they can discriminate during hiring. Other places are on the opposite end with the employers beholden to strong unions who set the hiring policies and, in that case, the unions should probably be required to accept any qualified member. But there's also a third option that I think doesn't require as much regulation. When there are a large number of employers with different corporate cultures and expectations and there is enough employee freedom to organize or not as they see fit, there are enough options that employers and employees are on roughly equal footing and strictly regulating their interactions isn't necessary.
I don't know if you can tell, but I'm more Libertarian than Anarchist. There are some interesting parallels and differences between those philosophies, that volumes could be written on (and have) without adequately addressing.
By the way, this has been a good conversation. It's not often that a discussion concerning topics people are passionate about can go on this long without flames erupting and name calling, especially on the internet.
So you're saying that if someone who likes to wear suits and ties goes to a metal concert, he wouldn't get funny looks or be judged negatively for it? Of course he'll be considered an outsider. He's giving off an image that represents something antithetical to values of the group. You're doing the same, or rather expressing views orthogonal to the group. It puts you at a disadvantage compared to those that conform to the image of the group they're trying to become a part of. I'm not advocating that you should change to fit in if it would betray your personal values, that would be hypocritical. Just understand that image is a useful tool in conveying what you value and that will be used to your advantage or disadvantage as it aligns or conflicts with the values of the groups you interact with.
Basically, all I'm saying is that you can't have your cake and eat it too.
In the narrow scope of job interviews for technical positions (without face to face customer interaction), judging solely on technical competence and phone etiquette probably is the best approach. Appearance isn't a critical factor in their job performance. Outside of that environment, society doesn't and shouldn't function that way. Personal appearance is a medium to convey a message, just like language. Society being blind to that would only limit a person's ability to express himself, not give him more freedom.
Instead, it seems what you want is to send a message with your appearance, but then expect people to ignore the parts that don't suit your goals. Communication just doesn't work that way. It's up to you to convey the message that you want others to understand. Either that or challenge the status quo (as you appear to be doing quite successfully) and accept that there may be some misunderstandings along the way (this is the part you seem to be objecting to).
By the way, I'm an engineer as well and have had long hair and a beard. No fancy colors though.
P.S. (pedantic statement) - In your prior post it's clincher, not clencher.
Clinch - seal, close or end conclusively
Clench - grasp or hold tightly, contract or tighten (esp. in reference to a body part)
(Sorry, I had to get that out there. Any time I see those sorts of substitution errors in grammar, every muscle in my body involuntarily clenches)
So your answer is that he should sacrifice the most important and basic of human freedoms: the right of self expression, to fit a norm he doesn't agree with, or accept being discriminated against because of something that has exactly ZERO bearing on his abilities or the value he ads ?
You're making the assumption that AC disagrees with the norm in his profession, but essentially yes he should accept that that is the way the world works.
Do I think it would be better if everyone was judged with no regard for their appearance? Actually, no. That would be a horribly inefficient way for a society to run. Quick judgements are necessary and how people present themselves should be taken into consideration. It would be better, however, if we were better at discounting stereotypes based on inherent physical characteristics like race and sex. And I try all I can to understand and minimize any such unfounded biases in my own decisions. But it would be foolhardy to cultivate a personal style that is far outside the norm or one that is antithetical to the norm in my chosen profession and expect people not to consider it in their opinion of me.
If you think your appearance is holding you back professionally why don't you do something to help solve that problem? While it's true you can't do anything about your height or skin color, you could certainly cut your hair, shave and possibly dress more conservatively (even better, dress/look like those who have the position you want). It's up to you make sure you fit the image of who you want to be professionally.
If you really don't know where to start, here's a good article with some basic advice of how to dress yourself appropriately for your office environment.
Things change a bit if the usage is closer to 3hr/month and electricity is less expensive (I pay about 6 cents/kWhr for off peak power which is when lighting is needed most).
That said, I can also buy 60W equivalent CFLs for ~50 cents for a four pack at my local Costco after an instant rebate the (government supported) power company subsidizes. And at that price, who cares if they only last a few months and poison the landfills with mercury. I'm saving money dammit (never mind where the power company gets the money to pay for that subsidy ***cough***my taxes***cough***)
Seriously though, lighting efficiency just isn't that big of a problem and it will solve itself relatively soon. Most new construction is switching over to more efficient appliances and lighting anyway because low utility bills are a big selling point.
But that's precisely the point. There's so little value in comparing temperatures in everyday situations that just referring to the local melting/boiling point is more meaningful. It already takes things like air pressure and wind speed into account.
Of course there would be no way to do any calculations using that scale, but that's what an absolute scale like Kelvin or Rankine are for.
"Brutal conditions are expected in Detroit, which has had only five days in living memory when temperatures stayed below freezing all day." Really? No one knows the difference between 0 degree F and freezing?
Well, they didn't specify below freezing of what exactly. I mean, everyone knows Linseed Oil freezes around -4F, right?
Ooh, I just had a great idea!! We should stop using all of these arbitrary scales for temperature and start using melting/freezing/boiling points instead. For example: "It's gonna be hot one today, paraffin might start to melt." Instead of "It's going to be hot today, the high may reach 115F." Much easier to understand and there's no need for any conversions.
Nope, I'm just a data mining resource like everyone else. I've only talked with Google Play and Nexus device support, so maybe those groups are better or I just got lucky.
Actually, I've had nothing but good experiences with Google phone support. Every time I've called I got an intelligent person who actually seemed interested in trying to resolve my problem. The success rate on solving the problem immediately wasn't perfect, but they did follow up when a patch was eventually released that fixed the issue.
If esoteric references and deep gameplay are the criteria, Sandcastle Builder may be in the running. It has even been referred to as "the Dwarf Fortress of idle games"
And for extra geek credit, it's based off of a xkcd comic
How much does it weigh in a sane unit like dynes?
They don't even say what weight paper they're using, so the mass could be off by an order of magnitude if you use the wrong one.
I was on Cox, but the same thing applies. I cancelled cable TV about 2yrs ago and since then, my internet service quality has gone down (despite higher peak mbps claims) and the prices went up by ~40%. They're obviously targeting "cord cutters" because the prices of the bundle packages aren't increasing at the same rate. So I finally decided to drop Cox service entirely (at least officially, they still haven't disconnected analog cable TV after 2yrs)
Where I am DSL just isn't a competitive option, so I decided to up my phone internet plan to unlimited data and forgo any wired internet. I'm now paying $45/mo less between internet and phone and the 4G speeds are comparable to what I was getting on cable. The only drawback is that I have a limited amount of tethering data, so I use that sparingly and watch streaming video on the TV through my phone with a slimport adapter.
It seems crazy that wireless providers can offer a competitive service against a company that has a physical cable into the house, but that's the state of affairs when there's no competition in the market. Although I doubt my solution would be acceptable to a majority of the population, it's still a good indicator of how severe the problem is with wired ISPs abusing their monopolies.
If one of those "reasonable, rational people who did not purchase health insurance" gets hit by a bus and has the good luck to survive, then almost certainly it'll be everyone else paying for their treatment in one way or another.
If they are reasonable, rational people they should be able to afford the medical bills and nobody else has to pay anything for their treatment. The problem is when people don't get insured because they can't afford it. Of course in that case, they often can't afford the co-pays or deductible anyway and the rest of us end up paying no matter what choices they make about health insurance.
The only way to truly solve that problem is to allow hospitals (ER's in particular) to refuse treatment in some cases. But that isn't really a tenable solution in our society. Although, there is something we can do to reduce the severity of problem: Reduce Costs. If we can introduce competition on medical care costs, more people could afford their own care and the burden on everyone else is lessened.
For this sort of problem, insurance is a red herring. All it does is shift the costs to different groups.
It's not necessarily true that it will increase CO2 emissions. It will decrease peak demand which is almost universally provided by fossil fuel based systems in favor of base demand which has varying levels of emissions (near zero for hydro or nuclear, but relatively high for coal). Even if it's coal, the base power plants are quite a bit more efficient than the on-demand natural gas generators. If they weren't, we would just use the peak load generators for everything.
The company gets to benefit from the flattened power demand and the employees get to charge their cars. Seems like a win-win to me. The additional wear on the batteries is likely minimal considering that there will probably be many more than 6 electric cars in the lot.
I doubt $4800/yr in electricity cost savings will fully offset the charger installation and maintenance costs, but it could be close enough that it can be justified as a marketing tool or as a perk to draw employees.
I just recently got a Nexus 5 to replace my aging Nokia N9 and was amazed by the near complete lack of simple tools that don't want access to your data in return. For the N9, there were a ton of useful free open source tools provided by the community over at maemo.org. That community was great. Every time I thought that there was something that was missing or new capability I wanted, I'd look there and find an app that already exists or a group of people in the process of building it.
The contrast between that experience and the excessive commercialism of Android was startling. After looking around for a while I did find this Simple LED Widget that is just what it says and doesn't require any unnecessary permissions, but I had to sift through dozens of apps like the one in the TFA.
Is there anything even close to maemo.org for Android? I've heard some good things about F-Droid, but I haven't looked into it enough yet to know if it's the best option.
If they notice serious misconduct and have no recourse to safely report it, is it really wise to stay? Sure they may have to give up tenure, but if the entire organization is corrupt and dishonest something is going to happen and there's a good chance that they will be considered a party to it. Which is really more important, tenure or maintaining integrity and a good reputation?
What's the best way to blow the whistle?
Take a deep breath, put your lips around the whistle's mouthpiece and exhale forcefully?
Oh, you meant figuratively? I'd say, that the best way is to avoid working with people who are unethical so whistle blowing isn't necessary. If you do happen to end up in a situation that you know something untoward is going on, report it. But only report it to someone you trust will behave responsibly and has the authority to resolve the issue. If that person doesn't exist, start polishing up your resume and look around for a better place to work.
I guess it's just a case of different priorities then. I see all of those extra gizmos as unnecessary things that are more likely to break and cost more to repair. I don't think I've seen a broken window crank in a car less than 20yrs old and even then it's a $10 fix instead of $150 or more for a new window motor.
Still, with the prices dropping the way they have been it may only be a few years before it's a better investment for me as well.
I've been trying to price out electric car ROIs as well and I'm getting basically the opposite outcome. They all seem to be ~$7500 more after the tax credit than the comparable gas powered car (e.g. leaf vs versa S plus) and that pays for quite a lot of gasoline. I calculate ~65k miles worth at 35mpg and $4/gal and that doesn't include the electric power costs.
Using this calculator I keep coming up with a break even point of about 8 years.
Cost of New Gas Car: $13970
Fuel Efficency of Gas Car: 35mpg
Cost of Gas: $4/gal
Cost of Electric Car: $21300
Cost of Electricity: $0.06/kWhr
kWh/100 miles: 34
Annual Driving Distance: 10000mi
This is essentially what I came here to say. It just doesn't make financial sense at the prices they want for electric cars. The cost difference between an electric and the gasoline powered equivalent seems to be around $7500 (after the tax rebate) which makes the fuel cost break even point somewhere around 100k miles. It may drop to 80k miles if you consider reduced maintenance costs as well, but there's no avoiding that it'll take a majority of the life of the vehicle to reach the point of being a net gain. Then there's the opportunity cost of not being able to invest that $7500 elsewhere.
I've done the same sorts of calculations for home PV electric systems and they just don't quite make sense yet. I'll keep checking, though. I like the idea behind both solar and electric cars. They are moving in the right direction of increased efficiency and lower cost while fossil fuel based power will only keep getting more expensive.
I misread the name as USS Umwelt and I figured it appropriate that nobody could agree what OS it was running.
Also, the stealth features would have to be impressive: ... how did a giant wooden rabbit get this far out to sea?
Enemy1: What's that on our radar?
Enemy2: It looks like a US Navy Destroyer
Enemy1: I don't know it could be a small fishing boat
Enemy2: No, wait
Because they have no idea what they're really paying for them.
Service plans that include a hidden phone subsidy are the standard (in the US), so most consumers only see the choice of a crappy dumbphone for "free" or pay $50 extra to get a near top of the line Apple/Android device (and Samsung has done well to become the first name in high end Android devices).