Incidentally, who cares if the energy is "renewable"? The only things we should actually care about collectively are that the source is non-polluting, and sustainable for a sufficiently long period... Say, until renewable power is cheap enough to not need a subsidy.
We could build (profitable) nuclear plants to hold us over until fusion, or solar, or wind are practical... Or we could subsidize those other options until that happens.... In terms of economic impact, I prefer the former. They're basically equal in terms of environmental impact.
You may be right. But it also doesn't say anything about privately raised capital. Most private companies are quick to reveal their backers before a project like this to build confidence in their position. It seems fishy to me that they don't say where the billions are coming from. The only reason I can see to hide it is to prevent public outcry.
I may be wrong, though. Like I said.. There's just a distinct lack of data.
There's a big difference between a taxpayer receiving a credit to purchase something that benefits society, and a corporation receiving a grant in order to turn a profit.
If the corporation were going to lose money on the project (like you do on a Prius relative to many other cars), you might have a point... But they won't. They're *guaranteed* a profit by energy contracts they obtain prior to construction.
I see your incorrect accusation of hypocrisy, and raise you some logic.
$1.6 billion is the cost to build it. There will need to be a fleet of service vessels and several full-time employees (I would guess around 50) to service and provide administrative functions for the project. Salaries, benefits, fuel (think diesel for service ships), and parts should easily add tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars per year in operating costs.
They're not answered anywhere on the company's website or in the article...
The answers to these questions are important when determining whether this project is worthy of support or not:
Who is paying to build the windfarm? Who gets to keep the profit from the windfarm?
For the windfarm they wanted to build around here, the answers were "me" (through tax dollars), and "not me" (as in some private corporation got to keep the profit, even though they didn't pay for the initial investment). Luckily a sufficient number of people were able to see that they were getting screwed through the veil of "environmental responsibility" in order to get the project canceled.
All Republicans? Do you mean before, or after the smear campaign he ran to win the nomination? Are you under some mistaken impression that Bush ever won a national election for a reason other than the fact that he was less awful (only slightly) than the other guy?
I can still write code for 64-bit Vista that's binary compatible with NT 3.0.
You say that like it's a novel feature... Have you ever used any BSD variant? Or Linux, for that matter?
Regardless, that matters less and less as more applications run in virtual runtime environments like a JVM, or in a scripted environment like PHP, Python, or Ruby... and has been true for a long time with Perl.
More and more applications are web-based or browser based. Most of these applications run on non-windows based platforms. We've already made the transition to the point where the majority of new successful software products run on open source platforms.
Reverse "Win32" and "open source software" in your post, and it will get more accurate... You'll still need to throw things like.NET, and JDK, and POSIX in there to get an even more accurate picture, but it'll be an improvement.
Companies that develop for open source platforms don't spend effort on supporting "every revision". They do, however, enjoy selling into a market with less worry about being embraced and extended by one of the handful of successful Windows development companies, freedom from waiting for their for-pay support contacts to get back to them with answers about why the API doesn't work as documented, the ability to define their own support matrix instead of having it dictated by Microsoft patch releases, and the ability to keep a much larger portion of their revenue.
I've tried them both. It's easier and more enjoyable to make a living writing commercial software for open-source platforms. By far. No contest. Everybody I know who has tried both agrees. People who say otherwise are usually trolls, or MSCEs who are afraid their certs won't be tickets for a ride on the gravy train much longer.
Incidentally, the original post is mis-credited
on
Android Phones Delayed
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The Wall Street Journal reported the delay. PC World merely parroted the report with Slashdotian flourish.
Itanium *did* have 32-bit x86 compatibility. It also had low yields/high manufacturing costs, enormous power requirements, and poor compiler support. Itanium lost because it couldn't compete with the development infrastructure that already existed for the x86 instruction set. Much of that code was not directly applicable on Itanium, and the development of new optimizations took so long that AMD had a huge opportunity. The failure of Itanium had almost nothing to do with 32-bit backwards compatibility.
I use a unique e-mail address for each organization I sign up for something with. I've never received spam or anything else to the address I gave to the EFF. The only thing I've ever gotten in the mail from them is a T-shirt.
- A bookseller signs a sales contract with terms before books are sent to said bookseller. These terms prohibit sale of books who's covers have been removed for refund. If the contract actually says "made not suitable for resale", the publisher would (successfully) argue that if any customer found the refunded book to have any value, the bookseller didn't sufficiently render it unsuitable for sale.
- A radio station receives an unsolicited CD in the mail from a record label; the label hopes the radio station will play said CD on the air. The front of the CD says "Not for resale"
In the first case, there is a legally binding contract that the bookseller entered into requiring them to destroy the coverless book or pay the wholesale price of the book to the publisher.
In the second case, under US law the record label has used the US mail to give the CD to the radio station as a gift. The radio station is free to do whatever they want with it, as they are not bound by any contract, no matter what is printed on the outside of the disc.
You missed the point. This is *internet* telephony. It is good in all those situations, 'cause if you're using it, you've got internet access. Period.
There is no excuse for using internet telephony without at least an IM first, since IM is available by definition if you've got access to internet telephony.
Honestly, if you're that worried an extra step will scare off a lead, you should deal with the spam calls. This problem is only interesting the other way around. (Businesses spamming individuals)
Arrange the usage of internet telephony over e-mail, SMS, or IM before initiating or accepting a call.
The intrusive nature of the required synchronicity of telephony is unacceptable anyway. It always has been. Hence the invention of call-screening devices, caller-ID, answering machines/voice mail, etc...
If you weren't expecting the call, don't answer it. Then you won't have to give anybody money for yet another "security" product.
Slashdot Mirror
Incidentally, who cares if the energy is "renewable"? The only things we should actually care about collectively are that the source is non-polluting, and sustainable for a sufficiently long period... Say, until renewable power is cheap enough to not need a subsidy.
We could build (profitable) nuclear plants to hold us over until fusion, or solar, or wind are practical... Or we could subsidize those other options until that happens.... In terms of economic impact, I prefer the former. They're basically equal in terms of environmental impact.
You may be right. But it also doesn't say anything about privately raised capital. Most private companies are quick to reveal their backers before a project like this to build confidence in their position. It seems fishy to me that they don't say where the billions are coming from. The only reason I can see to hide it is to prevent public outcry.
I may be wrong, though. Like I said.. There's just a distinct lack of data.
There's a big difference between a taxpayer receiving a credit to purchase something that benefits society, and a corporation receiving a grant in order to turn a profit.
If the corporation were going to lose money on the project (like you do on a Prius relative to many other cars), you might have a point... But they won't. They're *guaranteed* a profit by energy contracts they obtain prior to construction.
I see your incorrect accusation of hypocrisy, and raise you some logic.
If the blade is attached 250 ft up, and is 150 ft long....
250 - 150 = 100...
There should be 100 ft between the blade and the water. What does the diameter have to do with anything?
$1.6 billion is the cost to build it. There will need to be a fleet of service vessels and several full-time employees (I would guess around 50) to service and provide administrative functions for the project. Salaries, benefits, fuel (think diesel for service ships), and parts should easily add tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars per year in operating costs.
They're not answered anywhere on the company's website or in the article...
The answers to these questions are important when determining whether this project is worthy of support or not:
Who is paying to build the windfarm?
Who gets to keep the profit from the windfarm?
For the windfarm they wanted to build around here, the answers were "me" (through tax dollars), and "not me" (as in some private corporation got to keep the profit, even though they didn't pay for the initial investment). Luckily a sufficient number of people were able to see that they were getting screwed through the veil of "environmental responsibility" in order to get the project canceled.
Adjust the chart for inflation, and zoom out a couple decades and see what it tells you.
GWB is a poor example for Republican fiscal policy. He neither believes in, nor abides by it.
All Republicans? Do you mean before, or after the smear campaign he ran to win the nomination? Are you under some mistaken impression that Bush ever won a national election for a reason other than the fact that he was less awful (only slightly) than the other guy?
You say that like it's a novel feature... Have you ever used any BSD variant? Or Linux, for that matter?
Regardless, that matters less and less as more applications run in virtual runtime environments like a JVM, or in a scripted environment like PHP, Python, or Ruby... and has been true for a long time with Perl.
More and more applications are web-based or browser based. Most of these applications run on non-windows based platforms. We've already made the transition to the point where the majority of new successful software products run on open source platforms.
You don't write successful software, do you?
Reverse "Win32" and "open source software" in your post, and it will get more accurate... You'll still need to throw things like .NET, and JDK, and POSIX in there to get an even more accurate picture, but it'll be an improvement.
Companies that develop for open source platforms don't spend effort on supporting "every revision". They do, however, enjoy selling into a market with less worry about being embraced and extended by one of the handful of successful Windows development companies, freedom from waiting for their for-pay support contacts to get back to them with answers about why the API doesn't work as documented, the ability to define their own support matrix instead of having it dictated by Microsoft patch releases, and the ability to keep a much larger portion of their revenue.
I've tried them both. It's easier and more enjoyable to make a living writing commercial software for open-source platforms. By far. No contest. Everybody I know who has tried both agrees. People who say otherwise are usually trolls, or MSCEs who are afraid their certs won't be tickets for a ride on the gravy train much longer.
The Wall Street Journal reported the delay. PC World merely parroted the report with Slashdotian flourish.
Google says Android delay is a rumor, launch on target for 2008
Didn't stop the usual attention grabbers from writing knee-jerk I Told You So articles though...
Itanium *did* have 32-bit x86 compatibility. It also had low yields/high manufacturing costs, enormous power requirements, and poor compiler support. Itanium lost because it couldn't compete with the development infrastructure that already existed for the x86 instruction set. Much of that code was not directly applicable on Itanium, and the development of new optimizations took so long that AMD had a huge opportunity. The failure of Itanium had almost nothing to do with 32-bit backwards compatibility.
Are you trolling?
No, it doesn't mean that, because the rights-holder already had those legal protections without printing the message on the disc.
I use a unique e-mail address for each organization I sign up for something with. I've never received spam or anything else to the address I gave to the EFF. The only thing I've ever gotten in the mail from them is a T-shirt.
I think you replied to the wrong comment.
There are two distinct situations here:
- A bookseller signs a sales contract with terms before books are sent to said bookseller. These terms prohibit sale of books who's covers have been removed for refund. If the contract actually says "made not suitable for resale", the publisher would (successfully) argue that if any customer found the refunded book to have any value, the bookseller didn't sufficiently render it unsuitable for sale.
- A radio station receives an unsolicited CD in the mail from a record label; the label hopes the radio station will play said CD on the air. The front of the CD says "Not for resale"
In the first case, there is a legally binding contract that the bookseller entered into requiring them to destroy the coverless book or pay the wholesale price of the book to the publisher.
In the second case, under US law the record label has used the US mail to give the CD to the radio station as a gift. The radio station is free to do whatever they want with it, as they are not bound by any contract, no matter what is printed on the outside of the disc.
They make it really easy too. They can charge your card monthly.
You missed the point. This is *internet* telephony. It is good in all those situations, 'cause if you're using it, you've got internet access. Period.
There is no excuse for using internet telephony without at least an IM first, since IM is available by definition if you've got access to internet telephony.
Honestly, if you're that worried an extra step will scare off a lead, you should deal with the spam calls. This problem is only interesting the other way around. (Businesses spamming individuals)
Arrange the usage of internet telephony over e-mail, SMS, or IM before initiating or accepting a call.
The intrusive nature of the required synchronicity of telephony is unacceptable anyway. It always has been. Hence the invention of call-screening devices, caller-ID, answering machines/voice mail, etc...
If you weren't expecting the call, don't answer it. Then you won't have to give anybody money for yet another "security" product.
That's more likely due to having a self-defrosting freezer, and not due to sublimation.
That's 'cause Slashdot is Web 0.9.
(And we like it that way! Get off our lawn!)
That, and the round-trip latency, even at the speed of light, would be terrible.
If you have a PDA phone, Sprint's unlimited data plan is $15/month including tethering via bluetooth.