LOL yes, I guess I am a yuppie twit, since I'm not impressed. The stereotypes you're dragging out are entertaining, though. As are your arguments- if you're changing your furniture and your shrubs every few days, you really need to learn some discipline, but I doubt it's true. Too funny, man.
I knew that would get responses like this. So you're saying you use twice or three times as much fuel every day, so that once every few years you can haul something? Sounds reasonable. I guess I'm silly for renting a truck for those occasions.
And there aren't many of those Explorers out there with wheelchair mods on them that I've seen.
:) speak for your own education, though mine wasn't climatology. I said existing processes- as in not converting energy from stored sources. Simply put, using energy already in the system instead of introducing more that would not have been there otherwise. Of course the sun supplies a lot of energy; that's where much of what we use came from in the first place.
I wonder if you have a number for global energy production from fossil, nuclear and other similar stored sources to compare to the 1300W/m2 you note for the sun? I'm not sure off the cuff that a relatively efficient car creating 20kW at cruise, multiplied by hundreds of millions, is insignificant.
And you have discovered how to advance the technology enough for it to be buildable within the available open space, without destroying habitats and greenspaces that are protected? The solar energy concentration is not sufficient to convert the amount of energy we need with the technology we have without bulldozing half of the available landmass. This argument is similar to the (thankfully abortive) ethanol argument, which had Brazil contemplating how much of the rain forest they could knock down to grow corn without destroying the world's oxygen supply.
If it were as easy as you think, it would already be solved, for Pete's sake.
Nuclear energy is an excellent alternative, but it's far from inexhaustible, and it releases a huge amount of energy as heat that would not have been released without human intervention. I don't drink the global warming Kool-Aid, but this argument doesn't work very well against it. You're generating energy from otherwise inert sources-- what we need to shut Al Gore up is a mechanism that generates energy from existing, heat-creating processes, and that produces work. That mechanism would hopefully produce less heat by diverting energy to work, but nothing that anyone has put forth yet does that. The greenest technologies we have now only put the heat generation further up the production chain, and so far, they produce more heat than the traditional, low-tech methods. That's part of why none of them are commercially viable.
Sorry, not a Greenie. I'm addicted to facts, I'm afraid.
We need research into different energy sources, it's true, but what boggles my mind is why people don't address the simple things in their own lives, if they're concerned about energy conservation. The funniest thing I can see in this particular arena is the moron who rails against the oil companies and middle eastern governments, terrorists, and whatever else, then gets in his Explorer to commute to work by himself, getting 3 mpg, while babbling on his phone about how bad the energy situation is. If you drive a truck (no, I don't use the euphemistic 'SUV'), then shut the F up- you're part of the problem.
There is so much BS going around about alternative energy sources, but we could make a big difference now. I haven't ever owned a car that got less than 25 MPG, and I work half of my time from home; when I don't, I often ride a train. I doubt there are many alternative energy advocates that are close to my carbon footprint, but they put their faith in technology that doesn't exist instead of getting their supersized butts out of their trucks. And people listen to them anyway.
I use Parallels for the same reason, only I build web apps using multiple servers, so I'll have a couple of instances of Windows Server running, and instance of XP and/or Linux running so I can test the app from different clients and see how it works on the network. It's slower, of course, since I'm allocating all the processing over only two cores (and perhaps more importantly, one disc spindle). Slower or not, it's a great environment for testing apps that involve more than one computer. BootCamp doesn't do that for you.
Re:Ex-Military IT staff described in a nutshell.
on
The Living Dilbert?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I'm ex-military and pretty satisfied with the success I've had since in the commercial world. I'm also very taken aback by this post-- I've worked with both very professional and very useless people in both environments, and I'd sooner believe you're blaming your poor hiring decisions on a class of people, than I'd conclude that our veterans as a class are idiots.
You really need to look at that board in your own eye.
Sadly, but companies exist solely to help Web sites boost their ranking by exploiting Google pagerank algorithms-- so this is already true to a degree.
...that we've seen over and over. More interesting is the mistaken impression that it's only coding jobs going to India. Look at Business Week for another take.
Maybe just my hw, but I tried S8 on my home box (Tyan dual-PIII) and it did nothing but hang on the install. Has anyone tried 9 on a multi-CPU Intel box?
Slashdot Mirror
LOL yes, I guess I am a yuppie twit, since I'm not impressed. The stereotypes you're dragging out are entertaining, though. As are your arguments- if you're changing your furniture and your shrubs every few days, you really need to learn some discipline, but I doubt it's true. Too funny, man.
That's fair. I'm considering the fact that endo vs exo depends on how much energy you introduce as well as what amount is retained.
I knew that would get responses like this. So you're saying you use twice or three times as much fuel every day, so that once every few years you can haul something? Sounds reasonable. I guess I'm silly for renting a truck for those occasions.
And there aren't many of those Explorers out there with wheelchair mods on them that I've seen.
:) speak for your own education, though mine wasn't climatology. I said existing processes- as in not converting energy from stored sources. Simply put, using energy already in the system instead of introducing more that would not have been there otherwise. Of course the sun supplies a lot of energy; that's where much of what we use came from in the first place.
I wonder if you have a number for global energy production from fossil, nuclear and other similar stored sources to compare to the 1300W/m2 you note for the sun? I'm not sure off the cuff that a relatively efficient car creating 20kW at cruise, multiplied by hundreds of millions, is insignificant.
And you have discovered how to advance the technology enough for it to be buildable within the available open space, without destroying habitats and greenspaces that are protected? The solar energy concentration is not sufficient to convert the amount of energy we need with the technology we have without bulldozing half of the available landmass. This argument is similar to the (thankfully abortive) ethanol argument, which had Brazil contemplating how much of the rain forest they could knock down to grow corn without destroying the world's oxygen supply.
If it were as easy as you think, it would already be solved, for Pete's sake.
Nuclear energy is an excellent alternative, but it's far from inexhaustible, and it releases a huge amount of energy as heat that would not have been released without human intervention. I don't drink the global warming Kool-Aid, but this argument doesn't work very well against it. You're generating energy from otherwise inert sources-- what we need to shut Al Gore up is a mechanism that generates energy from existing, heat-creating processes, and that produces work. That mechanism would hopefully produce less heat by diverting energy to work, but nothing that anyone has put forth yet does that. The greenest technologies we have now only put the heat generation further up the production chain, and so far, they produce more heat than the traditional, low-tech methods. That's part of why none of them are commercially viable.
Sorry, not a Greenie. I'm addicted to facts, I'm afraid.
We need research into different energy sources, it's true, but what boggles my mind is why people don't address the simple things in their own lives, if they're concerned about energy conservation. The funniest thing I can see in this particular arena is the moron who rails against the oil companies and middle eastern governments, terrorists, and whatever else, then gets in his Explorer to commute to work by himself, getting 3 mpg, while babbling on his phone about how bad the energy situation is. If you drive a truck (no, I don't use the euphemistic 'SUV'), then shut the F up- you're part of the problem.
There is so much BS going around about alternative energy sources, but we could make a big difference now. I haven't ever owned a car that got less than 25 MPG, and I work half of my time from home; when I don't, I often ride a train. I doubt there are many alternative energy advocates that are close to my carbon footprint, but they put their faith in technology that doesn't exist instead of getting their supersized butts out of their trucks. And people listen to them anyway.
We've been hearing exactly that for 5 years now, and citizens and Congress have been going right along. What is new about your post?
The Save As menu choices are
Word Document
Word Template
Word 97-2003 Document
Find Add-ins for other file formats...
Other Formats
If you can't figure this out you need to put the computer back in the box and send it back.
I use Parallels for the same reason, only I build web apps using multiple servers, so I'll have a couple of instances of Windows Server running, and instance of XP and/or Linux running so I can test the app from different clients and see how it works on the network. It's slower, of course, since I'm allocating all the processing over only two cores (and perhaps more importantly, one disc spindle). Slower or not, it's a great environment for testing apps that involve more than one computer. BootCamp doesn't do that for you.
I'm ex-military and pretty satisfied with the success I've had since in the commercial world. I'm also very taken aback by this post-- I've worked with both very professional and very useless people in both environments, and I'd sooner believe you're blaming your poor hiring decisions on a class of people, than I'd conclude that our veterans as a class are idiots.
You really need to look at that board in your own eye.
Sadly, but companies exist solely to help Web sites boost their ranking by exploiting Google pagerank algorithms-- so this is already true to a degree.
...that we've seen over and over. More interesting is the mistaken impression that it's only coding jobs going to India. Look at Business Week for another take.
Shame these vids aren't available in something other than torrent. Means at least that I'll never see it.
"diff lastone, thisone" produces no output.
Maybe just my hw, but I tried S8 on my home box (Tyan dual-PIII) and it did nothing but hang on the install. Has anyone tried 9 on a multi-CPU Intel box?
That would make about as much sense as this.