As part of Riccitiello's separation agreement, he'll receive 24 months of salary continuation and continued vesting of unvested stock options until Nov. 30, 2013, with those options exercisable until Feb. 28, 2014.
Electricity produced is all planned months in advance.
Power plans are not just giant batteries, they do not produce power on demand they produce a set amount based on a schedule and give it out immediately. If their is less demand it is not stored
And that's the contradiction - if the power plants are going to be running and producing a constant power output regardless of the 1 hour "blackout", then why would new plants need to be brought online after the blackout?
Either power plants produce constant output and won't reduce their output even during the output, or they'll throttle back and/or shut down and will need to be brought back online after the hour is over.
a small decline in electricity consumption does not translate into less energy being pumped into the grid, and therefore will not reduce emissions. Moreover, during Earth Hour, any significant drop in electricity demand will entail a reduction in CO2 emissions during the hour, but it will be offset by the surge from firing up coal or gas stations to restore electricity supplies afterward.'"
So the drop in energy demand won't reduce the amount of electricity pumped into the grid, but after the hour is over, there will be enough extra demand to require new coal plants to be brought online even though they were still producing the same amount of power as before?
Sounds kind of like the logic my power company uses to explain high costs "The high demand for electricity means we need more money to build power plants and our increasing costs mean we need to charge more for electricity. The large number of home solar installations with net metering means that our expensive power plants are running under capacity, thus we need to charge more for electricity"
The missiles have a mixed record in testing, hitting dummy targets just 50 percent of the time, but officials said Friday’s announcement was intended not merely to present a credible deterrence to the North’s limited intercontinental ballistic missile arsenal.
and
The antimissile systems are considered less than reliable, and some administration officials were reluctant to pour additional resources into deploying more of the existing technology.
and
“It remains unclear whether these ground-based interceptors can work effectively, and they should be subjected to much more rigorous field testing before taxpayer resources are spent on a system that is ineffective,”
and
James N. Miller, the Pentagon’s under secretary for policy, said the new missiles would have to show success before they would be deployed. “We will continue to stick with our ‘fly before we buy’ approach,” Mr. Miller said, citing a successful test as recently as Jan. 26. George Lewis, an antimissile missile expert at Cornell University, said 15 flight tests of the defensive system have tried to hit targets, and only eight have succeeded
When half the tests under controlled conditions fail, I think it's safe to say that the system is not ready for real-world conditions.
Since they don't really work, we could save $999M by paying some Hollywood set designers deploy something that just looks like a ballistic missile defense system. They could hire some extras to protest the installations for greater authenticity.
I am no apple fanbois, it's just that if the defective part came from LG, why not home in to the manufacturer, instead of the seller?
Why sue LG? All they did was assemble raw materials.... better sue the company that supplied the sand that was melted down to create the glass used in the displays.
This still requires some sort of coordination before the fact through a secondary communication channel. Can you imagine if the post office and phone company worked that way? There has to be a better solution.
I'm imagining the phone company working that way, and it sounds like a good way to get rid of the unsolicited telemarketing calls. If the only callers that can reach me are ones that I've shared my phone number with through some other communication channel, then I wouldn't get any unsolicitied telemarketing calls.
Worse than the telemarkers...apparently the guy that used to have my number had some problems with paying bills, I still get calls from creditors looking for him. I've had this number for 2 years now, maybe he's still giving it out.
It might make it harder for some people to reach me, but I turn my phone off at night due to too many early morning calls and often silence and ignore the phone when it rings, so it's already harder for some people to reach me, even people that I want to reach me.
What's the significant difference? Isn't refusing jabber messages from non-google account just as bad, and bad for the same reasons, as refusing email from non-google accounts?
The significant difference between blocking email and blocking jabber requests is that when you find that your jabber request is blocked, you can ask the person on the Google side to send you a request from their end, and from then on you can communicate with them.
It's kind of like if Google silently blocked external emails and the most reliable way to make sure your message got through would be to ask the recipient to add you to their address book. Oh wait, they already do that.
I've seen this one on SyFy. The scientists accidentally mix in their DNA with the pigeon DNA and we get a ruthless bird-beast that kills with bird-flu contaminated venom. Starring that guy in that show you used to watch 15 years ago and a hot 22 year old wannabe actress the producer is fucking.
I thought you were making that up but I looked it up and the movie is Flu Bird Horror, and I think the guy you're referring to is Lance Guest (aka Alex Rogan from The Last Starfighter)
RTFA there were over 1 billion of them in 1890 and then went extinct by 1914. You really think their natural predators have now all evolved to ignore them?
Some of their natural predators are now endangeredthemselves. Some of them are also known to be a nuisance to humans. Do you really want to give them an unlimited food source? Maybe the birds won't be a problem, but the rise of predators will be.
And are you sure that the predators can reproduce fast enough to keep up with the growth of pigeons?
And what happens to the ecosystems that are taken over by the expanding population of new predators (and the predators of the predators?)? And what happens to the new predator population if the pigeons are eradicated again?
This country is much different than it was 100 years ago, so maybe the birds will no longer thrive and it's a non-issue. Or maybe the easy access to crops and current lack of predators will let them grow to even greater numbers than before.
...I find I don"t use any of it. Sure, I will upload some large files from time to time if I know I want to transfer them to another PC at work for example....
Are you sure you know what "I don't use any of it" means?
or will the passenger pigeon take over and push out other species (not to mention causing crop and tree damage)?
Unless they are much different than current pigeons, I think bridges and building are in more danger.
Well, that's kind of the problem with bringing back an extinct species - you don't really know how will behave in the current environment until you bring it back. At first it's declared an endangered/protected species, and it starts to grow... flocks of thousands of birds in the air show the success of the program. Then the flocks grow millions, people start to complain about crop damage as the flocks grow to 100's of millions, putting entire forests are at risk.
It took man 25 years to drive them to extinction (and that's when he had the help from natural predators the had evolved to keep the birds in check), even if it "only" takes 10 years the next time, there's a lot of damage that could be done in the meantime. Plus, man may overshoot the mark and drive other species to extinction in their drive to control the passenger pigeon.
While I'd like to restore an extinct species, this sort of thing is outright irresponsible.
As irresponsible as wiping them out without thinking of the ramifications?
What about the ramifications of bringing an extinct bird back to life that was adapted to thrive in a much different environment than exists today? Are its natural predators still around or will the passenger pigeon take over and push out other species (not to mention causing crop and tree damage)?
Because the passenger pigeon congregated in such huge numbers, it needed large forests for its existence. When the early settlers cleared the eastern forests for farmland, the birds were forced to shift their nesting and roosting sites to the forests that still remained. As their forest food supply decreased, the birds began utilizing the grain fields of the farmers. The large flocks of passenger pigeons often caused serious damage to the crops, and the farmers retaliated by shooting the birds and using them as a source of meat. However, this did not seem to seriously diminish the total number of birds.
Don't be silly, nothing like that could happen - the new birds will be engineered to make them unable to produce Lysine, so they'll be dependent upon Lysine supplements from their keepers. Stop feeding them Lysine and the bio-engineered birds will die. Easy-peasy. What could go wrong?
I bike to work 2 - 3 times/week (In the winter months when it's dark at night, I tend to bike in once direction only and take transit home. It's a 19 mile ride so even a one way trip is pretty good exercise).
The dog makes sure I got out for at least one 30 minute walk or jog (the wife usually takes her for the afternoon walk).
I spend my lunch hour walking with a few coworkers.
I can't imagine that a treadmill would work well in the office -- I'd either be focused on the treadmill and not working, or be focused on working and not the treadmill and would end up tripping myself.
Why do they let the automakers run the test? Instead the regulatory bodies should ask for 3 production samples and an application fee and then the regulatory body should do the tests themselves.
Unless you're willing to donate your time to administer them and keep them running (including replacing hardware when it fails), just recycle the computers, non profits don't have the staff to keep old hardware running, and though they may have someone that understands some Windows basics, they aren't going to have anyone that knows anything about Linux.
My wife works for a non-profit and when well meaning people donate old computers, they thank them, then hand them off to an eWaste recycler (who fortunately takes them for free)
While this is upsetting at least they haven't gotten to the point of having a Wal-Mart Oncology Department.
It's going to be the Phillip-Morris Department of Oncology. And I hear they are going to discover that cigarettes don't cause cancer after all, it turns out that breathing is the problem.
Seriously, did you ever sit down, multiply (tuition X students), and think about whether that yields enough money to run a university? If you think it does, you are so far off it isn't even funny.
I went to a school that depends heavily on research grants, yet they haven't named a single professor after a corporation.
It seems that it would get in the way of educational integrity..."Ford Professor of Electrical Engineering finds dangerous flaw in Chevy Volt, assures us that the Ford Ampere has no such problems, and our Energizer Professor of Batteries finds that the Duracell batteries used in the Chevy are substandard".
The RSA Professor of Electrical Engineering, the Ford Professor of Engineering. Do universities really need money so badly that they have to sell advertising in their faculty position names?
The same people who hated Benedict XVI and John Paul II will hate Pope Francis. How dare he believe in 2000 years worth of teachings about the sanctity of life and marriage being between a man and a woman when it's all so unfashionable?
Why did liberal atheist's care so much what the Pope thinks. No one is holding a gun to your head to force you to be a Catholic. Why do so many liberals feel threatened by any source of power outside of government?
Just because something is 2000 years old doesn't make it right. Should we bring back old testament style animal sacrifices as well?
I have no problem with catholics being anti-gay and excluding gays from their church - if god is not the compassionate and forgiving god that they are always talking about it, well, it's their god and they can believe what they want.
But where I do have a problem is when the members of the church try to deprive the rights of homosexuals outside of church.
Slashdot Mirror
He'll somehow have to scrape by on 24 months of full pay (and stock vesting):
http://www.polygon.com/2013/3/18/4120344/ea-ceo-john-riccitiello-quits
As part of Riccitiello's separation agreement, he'll receive 24 months of salary continuation and continued vesting of unvested stock options until Nov. 30, 2013, with those options exercisable until Feb. 28, 2014.
Electricity produced is all planned months in advance.
Power plans are not just giant batteries, they do not produce power on demand they produce a set amount based on a schedule and give it out immediately. If their is less demand it is not stored
And that's the contradiction - if the power plants are going to be running and producing a constant power output regardless of the 1 hour "blackout", then why would new plants need to be brought online after the blackout?
Either power plants produce constant output and won't reduce their output even during the output, or they'll throttle back and/or shut down and will need to be brought back online after the hour is over.
How can you have both?
a small decline in electricity consumption does not translate into less energy being pumped into the grid, and therefore will not reduce emissions. Moreover, during Earth Hour, any significant drop in electricity demand will entail a reduction in CO2 emissions during the hour, but it will be offset by the surge from firing up coal or gas stations to restore electricity supplies afterward.'"
So the drop in energy demand won't reduce the amount of electricity pumped into the grid, but after the hour is over, there will be enough extra demand to require new coal plants to be brought online even though they were still producing the same amount of power as before?
Sounds kind of like the logic my power company uses to explain high costs "The high demand for electricity means we need more money to build power plants and our increasing costs mean we need to charge more for electricity. The large number of home solar installations with net metering means that our expensive power plants are running under capacity, thus we need to charge more for electricity"
Don't really work?
Fascinating. Cite?
Ferret
From TFA:
The missiles have a mixed record in testing, hitting dummy targets just 50 percent of the time, but officials said Friday’s announcement was intended not merely to present a credible deterrence to the North’s limited intercontinental ballistic missile arsenal.
and
The antimissile systems are considered less than reliable, and some administration officials were reluctant to pour additional resources into deploying more of the existing technology.
and
“It remains unclear whether these ground-based interceptors can work effectively, and they should be subjected to much more rigorous field testing before taxpayer resources are spent on a system that is ineffective,”
and
James N. Miller, the Pentagon’s under secretary for policy, said the new missiles would have to show success before they would be deployed. “We will continue to stick with our ‘fly before we buy’ approach,” Mr. Miller said, citing a successful test as recently as Jan. 26. George Lewis, an antimissile missile expert at Cornell University, said 15 flight tests of the defensive system have tried to hit targets, and only eight have succeeded
When half the tests under controlled conditions fail, I think it's safe to say that the system is not ready for real-world conditions.
You mean a cloud service in "limited preview" is much faster than a cloud server open to the public and heavily used?
There much be some fancy engineering behind the scenes to make a lightly used service run faster than a heavily used one.
I want to see the benchmarks after GCE is open to the public.
Since they don't really work, we could save $999M by paying some Hollywood set designers deploy something that just looks like a ballistic missile defense system. They could hire some extras to protest the installations for greater authenticity.
LG was the manufacturer of the defective screen
They should sue LG instead of Apple
I am no apple fanbois, it's just that if the defective part came from LG, why not home in to the manufacturer, instead of the seller?
Why sue LG? All they did was assemble raw materials.... better sue the company that supplied the sand that was melted down to create the glass used in the displays.
This still requires some sort of coordination before the fact through a secondary communication channel. Can you imagine if the post office and phone company worked that way? There has to be a better solution.
I'm imagining the phone company working that way, and it sounds like a good way to get rid of the unsolicited telemarketing calls. If the only callers that can reach me are ones that I've shared my phone number with through some other communication channel, then I wouldn't get any unsolicitied telemarketing calls.
Worse than the telemarkers...apparently the guy that used to have my number had some problems with paying bills, I still get calls from creditors looking for him. I've had this number for 2 years now, maybe he's still giving it out.
It might make it harder for some people to reach me, but I turn my phone off at night due to too many early morning calls and often silence and ignore the phone when it rings, so it's already harder for some people to reach me, even people that I want to reach me.
What's the significant difference? Isn't refusing jabber messages from non-google account just as bad, and bad for the same reasons, as refusing email from non-google accounts?
The significant difference between blocking email and blocking jabber requests is that when you find that your jabber request is blocked, you can ask the person on the Google side to send you a request from their end, and from then on you can communicate with them.
It's kind of like if Google silently blocked external emails and the most reliable way to make sure your message got through would be to ask the recipient to add you to their address book. Oh wait, they already do that.
I've seen this one on SyFy. The scientists accidentally mix in their DNA with the pigeon DNA and we get a ruthless bird-beast that kills with bird-flu contaminated venom. Starring that guy in that show you used to watch 15 years ago and a hot 22 year old wannabe actress the producer is fucking.
I thought you were making that up but I looked it up and the movie is Flu Bird Horror, and I think the guy you're referring to is Lance Guest (aka Alex Rogan from The Last Starfighter)
RTFA there were over 1 billion of them in 1890 and then went extinct by 1914. You really think their natural predators have now all evolved to ignore them?
Some of their natural predators are now endangered themselves. Some of them are also known to be a nuisance to humans. Do you really want to give them an unlimited food source? Maybe the birds won't be a problem, but the rise of predators will be.
And are you sure that the predators can reproduce fast enough to keep up with the growth of pigeons?
And what happens to the ecosystems that are taken over by the expanding population of new predators (and the predators of the predators?)? And what happens to the new predator population if the pigeons are eradicated again?
This country is much different than it was 100 years ago, so maybe the birds will no longer thrive and it's a non-issue. Or maybe the easy access to crops and current lack of predators will let them grow to even greater numbers than before.
"I don't know why she swallowed the fly"
they went extinct! But I hear someones bringing them back
You're confusing two different pigeons.
Are you sure you know what "I don't use any of it" means?
or will the passenger pigeon take over and push out other species (not to mention causing crop and tree damage)?
Unless they are much different than current pigeons, I think bridges and building are in more danger.
Well, that's kind of the problem with bringing back an extinct species - you don't really know how will behave in the current environment until you bring it back. At first it's declared an endangered/protected species, and it starts to grow... flocks of thousands of birds in the air show the success of the program. Then the flocks grow millions, people start to complain about crop damage as the flocks grow to 100's of millions, putting entire forests are at risk.
It took man 25 years to drive them to extinction (and that's when he had the help from natural predators the had evolved to keep the birds in check), even if it "only" takes 10 years the next time, there's a lot of damage that could be done in the meantime. Plus, man may overshoot the mark and drive other species to extinction in their drive to control the passenger pigeon.
Sometimes it's better to let sleeping dogs lie.
While I'd like to restore an extinct species, this sort of thing is outright irresponsible.
As irresponsible as wiping them out without thinking of the ramifications?
What about the ramifications of bringing an extinct bird back to life that was adapted to thrive in a much different environment than exists today? Are its natural predators still around or will the passenger pigeon take over and push out other species (not to mention causing crop and tree damage)?
http://www.si.edu/encyclopedia_Si/nmnh/passpig.htm
Because the passenger pigeon congregated in such huge numbers, it needed large forests for its existence. When the early settlers cleared the eastern forests for farmland, the birds were forced to shift their nesting and roosting sites to the forests that still remained. As their forest food supply decreased, the birds began utilizing the grain fields of the farmers. The large flocks of passenger pigeons often caused serious damage to the crops, and the farmers retaliated by shooting the birds and using them as a source of meat. However, this did not seem to seriously diminish the total number of birds.
Has anyone asked Jeff Goldblum to weigh in?
Don't be silly, nothing like that could happen - the new birds will be engineered to make them unable to produce Lysine, so they'll be dependent upon Lysine supplements from their keepers. Stop feeding them Lysine and the bio-engineered birds will die. Easy-peasy. What could go wrong?
The cell phone guys already know this - people report symptoms even when the tower isn't powered on.
I bike to work 2 - 3 times/week (In the winter months when it's dark at night, I tend to bike in once direction only and take transit home. It's a 19 mile ride so even a one way trip is pretty good exercise).
The dog makes sure I got out for at least one 30 minute walk or jog (the wife usually takes her for the afternoon walk).
I spend my lunch hour walking with a few coworkers.
I can't imagine that a treadmill would work well in the office -- I'd either be focused on the treadmill and not working, or be focused on working and not the treadmill and would end up tripping myself.
Why do they let the automakers run the test? Instead the regulatory bodies should ask for 3 production samples and an application fee and then the regulatory body should do the tests themselves.
Unless you're willing to donate your time to administer them and keep them running (including replacing hardware when it fails), just recycle the computers, non profits don't have the staff to keep old hardware running, and though they may have someone that understands some Windows basics, they aren't going to have anyone that knows anything about Linux.
My wife works for a non-profit and when well meaning people donate old computers, they thank them, then hand them off to an eWaste recycler (who fortunately takes them for free)
While this is upsetting at least they haven't gotten to the point of having a Wal-Mart Oncology Department.
It's going to be the Phillip-Morris Department of Oncology. And I hear they are going to discover that cigarettes don't cause cancer after all, it turns out that breathing is the problem.
Seriously, did you ever sit down, multiply (tuition X students), and think about whether that yields enough money to run a university? If you think it does, you are so far off it isn't even funny.
I went to a school that depends heavily on research grants, yet they haven't named a single professor after a corporation.
It seems that it would get in the way of educational integrity..."Ford Professor of Electrical Engineering finds dangerous flaw in Chevy Volt, assures us that the Ford Ampere has no such problems, and our Energizer Professor of Batteries finds that the Duracell batteries used in the Chevy are substandard".
The RSA Professor of Electrical Engineering, the Ford Professor of Engineering. Do universities really need money so badly that they have to sell advertising in their faculty position names?
Pope Francis remains only the most recent non-European pope.
Pope Francis remains the most recent __FILL_IN_THE_BLANK__ Pope, at least until we have another new Pope.
Not true if FILL_IN_THE_BLANK is "deceased" or "resigned".
The same people who hated Benedict XVI and John Paul II will hate Pope Francis. How dare he believe in 2000 years worth of teachings about the sanctity of life and marriage being between a man and a woman when it's all so unfashionable?
Why did liberal atheist's care so much what the Pope thinks. No one is holding a gun to your head to force you to be a Catholic. Why do so many liberals feel threatened by any source of power outside of government?
Just because something is 2000 years old doesn't make it right. Should we bring back old testament style animal sacrifices as well?
I have no problem with catholics being anti-gay and excluding gays from their church - if god is not the compassionate and forgiving god that they are always talking about it, well, it's their god and they can believe what they want.
But where I do have a problem is when the members of the church try to deprive the rights of homosexuals outside of church.