It also works. Potential employers are looking at Facebook profiles, so give them something to read. Rub shoulders with the best and greatest in your field (Photoshop is your friend), make sure you talk about all the great events and conferences you get invited to but have to decline going because you just can't find the time between all your charity work.
NO employer will ask you about it because they'd have to admit that they're spying on you. But ALL of them are looking.
Whatever you want to label me, at the end of the day it means that I don't believe in a skydaddy and as far as I am concerned there is no reason to take anything this imaginary OCD patient wants me to do serious.
The one question I'd have is 'why'. What's the benefit? So you can grow stuff closer to large concentrations of consumers? What for? So you save in transport? Ok. Valid point. Do you conserve more energy by not transporting it than you expend by artificial lighting, watering and whatever else you get for "free" from nature, and building of those "farms"? I dare say no.
There are very few revolutions that didn't replace one tyrant with another. Mostly because it takes someone who wants to wield power to start a revolution. And these people are rarely the nice kind.
And then there's the possibility that some asshole who wants to slander you creates a fake page in your name and offers some photoshopped pics of you showing off your bizarre sexual fetishes if you don't already control the FB-page with your name.
Even more important if you have a globally unique name.
Remember: It's 10% of those that didn't already know it in the first place. 10% of Americans CAN actually get smarter when facing evidence that they were stupid.
If you want this to happen, don't just make a "consumer group". That shit never flies. Create a webpage and make sure it gets some media attention. Doesn't even matter whether any people follow it, what matters is that corporations think that it has some kind of impact on their bottom line.
Hey, it worked with YouTube. Nobody I know really gave half a shit about the "outcry" about ads on terrorist videos, mostly because nobody I know really gave half a shit about the ads, all we did was concentrate on the lower right corner, repeatedly clicking the "skip" area as soon an ad was shown.
No. Atheists do not believe in gods. They do not believe that there is no god. Yes, that IS different. Not believing is a lack of faith, not a faith in the opposite.
I have noticed that people who do believe in some sort of deity can't imagine that people don't participate in mass delusions and MUST believe SOMETHING. But guess what: I don't. And that's even the default position you're born with. When you're born, you don't believe in anything. Easy to show: If nobody ever told you about the guy nailed to a cross and skydaddy, how could you believe in either of them? You CANNOT believe anything or even in anything without first being told about it. Your default position is to not believe. Once you're told, you're given the choice: Believe it or say "nope, don't buy it". I simply did the latter.
I just didn't move away from that default position. Mostly because nobody ever gave me a reason to. My position is simply to not believe, and I'll probably continue to do this until someone shows me that his deity is real. That position doesn't have anything to do with faith in anything. If anything, it has to do with a lack of faith.
No, not the feelgood treehugger variant where you try to use less fuel. The physical one.
CO2 has a few very, very crappy properties. One of them being that it takes a LOT of energy to break up. Because forming it released a LOT of energy. Well, duh, why do you think we use ICEs burning hydrocarbons that produce CO2 and H2O (another one of those hard to split molecules).
You can now of course use a lot or energy to transform CO2 back to something useful. We could instead take that energy and use it as a replacement for energy that is now generated by burning something that creates CO2. Yes, we could of course also do both, but until we actually produce ALL energy by means that do not produce CO2, the energy is better used by fueling whatever it is that is now fueled in a CO2 producing way.
Again, cyber bullying is not name calling. It's not someone calling you an idiot or something, it's more akin to spreading rumors about you, posting pictures of you, slandering you, spreading untrue stories about you with your boss/teacher/peers/parents... you really want to tell me that won't have an impact on you? Even if you are asocial enough to not want or care about social contacts, can you claim that someone telling your boss you're fucking your kids won't have any effect?
The puritan bullshit thinking. If you're sleeping, you can't be productive and thus you're BAD. And since they're already sleeping again ("after a hard day's work") when you're at peak performance, they don't see you work so you're BAD.
Slashdot Mirror
Way ahead of you.
It also works. Potential employers are looking at Facebook profiles, so give them something to read. Rub shoulders with the best and greatest in your field (Photoshop is your friend), make sure you talk about all the great events and conferences you get invited to but have to decline going because you just can't find the time between all your charity work.
NO employer will ask you about it because they'd have to admit that they're spying on you. But ALL of them are looking.
When was the time to start using them?
I'm pretty sure you can name a few if there are even plenty of them.
So you have plants that converts about 100% of the artificial light that hits it?
Whatever you want to label me, at the end of the day it means that I don't believe in a skydaddy and as far as I am concerned there is no reason to take anything this imaginary OCD patient wants me to do serious.
The one question I'd have is 'why'. What's the benefit? So you can grow stuff closer to large concentrations of consumers? What for? So you save in transport? Ok. Valid point. Do you conserve more energy by not transporting it than you expend by artificial lighting, watering and whatever else you get for "free" from nature, and building of those "farms"? I dare say no.
There are very few revolutions that didn't replace one tyrant with another. Mostly because it takes someone who wants to wield power to start a revolution. And these people are rarely the nice kind.
Wow, it's so easy! Why didn't anyone ever have that idea?
Well, maybe because it doesn't work. Like pretty much all easy solutions "nobody" ever thought of...
Let's split him up.
Land owners fearing mob rule? Color me surprised.
Well, as long as you're not receiving anything, I can see how you think FedEx, UPS or (especially) DHL are superior to the postal service...
Put it in the Amazon cloud.
Ya know, we used to think the same with companies, that they will just perish if they don't succeed in the market.
That computer ran a few hours per year. Paying for it with power savings would probably require that the work could be done by an Arduino.
I replaced it because of the space it took up.
And then there's the possibility that some asshole who wants to slander you creates a fake page in your name and offers some photoshopped pics of you showing off your bizarre sexual fetishes if you don't already control the FB-page with your name.
Even more important if you have a globally unique name.
10% is already way more than I'd have expected.
Remember: It's 10% of those that didn't already know it in the first place. 10% of Americans CAN actually get smarter when facing evidence that they were stupid.
If you want this to happen, don't just make a "consumer group". That shit never flies. Create a webpage and make sure it gets some media attention. Doesn't even matter whether any people follow it, what matters is that corporations think that it has some kind of impact on their bottom line.
Hey, it worked with YouTube. Nobody I know really gave half a shit about the "outcry" about ads on terrorist videos, mostly because nobody I know really gave half a shit about the ads, all we did was concentrate on the lower right corner, repeatedly clicking the "skip" area as soon an ad was shown.
*sigh*
No. Atheists do not believe in gods. They do not believe that there is no god. Yes, that IS different. Not believing is a lack of faith, not a faith in the opposite.
I have noticed that people who do believe in some sort of deity can't imagine that people don't participate in mass delusions and MUST believe SOMETHING. But guess what: I don't. And that's even the default position you're born with. When you're born, you don't believe in anything. Easy to show: If nobody ever told you about the guy nailed to a cross and skydaddy, how could you believe in either of them? You CANNOT believe anything or even in anything without first being told about it. Your default position is to not believe. Once you're told, you're given the choice: Believe it or say "nope, don't buy it". I simply did the latter.
I just didn't move away from that default position. Mostly because nobody ever gave me a reason to. My position is simply to not believe, and I'll probably continue to do this until someone shows me that his deity is real. That position doesn't have anything to do with faith in anything. If anything, it has to do with a lack of faith.
When I'm awake and working, you're tired and go to sleep, slacker!
No, not the feelgood treehugger variant where you try to use less fuel. The physical one.
CO2 has a few very, very crappy properties. One of them being that it takes a LOT of energy to break up. Because forming it released a LOT of energy. Well, duh, why do you think we use ICEs burning hydrocarbons that produce CO2 and H2O (another one of those hard to split molecules).
You can now of course use a lot or energy to transform CO2 back to something useful. We could instead take that energy and use it as a replacement for energy that is now generated by burning something that creates CO2. Yes, we could of course also do both, but until we actually produce ALL energy by means that do not produce CO2, the energy is better used by fueling whatever it is that is now fueled in a CO2 producing way.
The only time I was ever early for work was when I was working remotely for a US company in Cali while sitting in Europe...
Yeah, even I can be on time for meetings at 8am when I'm living 9 hours away.
Again, cyber bullying is not name calling. It's not someone calling you an idiot or something, it's more akin to spreading rumors about you, posting pictures of you, slandering you, spreading untrue stories about you with your boss/teacher/peers/parents... you really want to tell me that won't have an impact on you? Even if you are asocial enough to not want or care about social contacts, can you claim that someone telling your boss you're fucking your kids won't have any effect?
I faced the same problem.
I changed jobs.
No job is worth bending over backwards for it. I'm good enough to write the rules. You don't like me coming in at 10-11, I find someone who does.
The puritan bullshit thinking. If you're sleeping, you can't be productive and thus you're BAD. And since they're already sleeping again ("after a hard day's work") when you're at peak performance, they don't see you work so you're BAD.
Police? That's assault by proxy!