This is why you should carry pepper spray if you carry a gun.
There is a large class of scenarios in which you put yourself at great legal risk if you go immediately to deadly force as a response -- and remember that in most states merely drawing a gun is threatening deadly force, which constitutes aggravated assault (or whatever the state calls it). The problem is that in those same situations there's a possibility that your opponent may realize you have a gun and go for it, which can leave you in a very bad situation.
It's very valuable to have a non-lethal (legally, at least) at-a-distance self-defense option.
What you describe wouldn't really work; it doesn't overlay your whole field of vision. It could, however, project the manual where you can look at it easily just by looking up and to the right, and you could use voice commands to navigate to what you need to see.
I've been watching the application stream on Google+ and so far the most interesting applications are all about what can be done with a voice-controlled camera on your head. So, like a GoPro, but smaller, lighter and more hands-free -- as well as with an Internet connection and the ability to interact with apps and people.
One I saw was from a surgeon who'd like to use it to record and share operations, interact with peers to get suggestions, etc. Think about doing a Hangout On-Air with an expert in the particular surgery you're doing, able to talk and get answers during the surgery, with the remote expert able to see exactly what you're doing, then to have it all recorded for future use. There are a lot of people with similar ideas in different fields.
Another was from a search and rescue guy, who wants to outfit his whole team with them, to provide real-time, hands-free communications and maps, with all of the rescuers plotted, and to be able to do audio or video communications between team members, and to share video streams.
Another was from a filmmaker who wants to explore using Glass to make a full-length feature film.
I think these sorts of innovative uses are what Google is looking for.
do I need to have information projected constantly over my field of vision
FYI, "over my field of vision" isn't a good characterization of Glass. It's more like having a screen floating a few feet from your head, above and to the right. It's not in the central part of your visual field.
That's the real problem. If you have a great idea, exposing it to every twitter twit before you can implement it would be a strategic error.
This is a program for beta test users, not developers. If you are a developer and have an awesome app idea, you should apply through the developer program.
Seriously, what about those of us who already have glasses? I guess I'm not hip enough.:(
Looking at some of the pictures, it seems like it should be pretty straightforward to add prescription lenses. For example, look at the model with tinted lenses attached near the bottom of this page. If your optometrist can get some lenses manufactured in that same shape, you should be able to screw them on just like the tinted lens.
From what I hear, the image projected through the glass block appears to be floating at some distance from you (maybe 5-10 feet), so as long as your prescription allows you to comfortably focus at that distance through the top of your lens, you should be able to see the screen. So even bifocals should be fine. I'm not sure about trifocals.
When a user is found to be the victim of a phishing attack, put them on a daily password reset for a week or month.
The victims tend to learn from all the inconvenience caused by the attack itself. It's everyone that didn't get phished you need to reach.
Perhaps the solution is to send out a university-sponsored phishing attack, then conduct an Internet-safety education seminar for everyone who falls for it.
> Anyone who thinks that sending all my keystrokes to their server...
Well. Not ALL keystrokes. Just Unity Dash searches. Doesn't Android's integrated search bar do something like this too? Not that it makes it OK of course.
I don't think so. Android's search bar does the same "instant search" thing that google.com does, so it sends each keystroke to Google for predictive search. And Google, of course, keeps track of what you search for (unless you opt out) to help target ads. However, Google doesn't send your data to anyone else.
(Disclaimer: I work for Google, but not on these products and it's possible that I'm wrong. I don't think I am, though.)
I do not have the time, once again, to look up those obscure keyboard commands so that I may navigate laboriously through the documentation.
What obscure keyboard commands? They're just the keybindings for the help system of the One True Editor. If you are using something inferior and have therefore memorized some truly obscure keyboard commands instead, how is that their fault?
The small state bonus doesn't exist. Part of the Electoral College design was intended to give small states a boost, so they're not completely dominated by their larger brethren, but the founders didn't have the mathematics necessary to really understand the effect of their design. We do now, and the conclusion you reach by evaluating the situation according to the various vote power measures is that in fact the reverse is true. The power of bloc voting means that power disproportionately accrues to large blocs, which means large states in this context.
If all states were to allocate their electoral votes proportionally, then small states really would get a boost. As it is, they're actually disadvantaged by the system. Not as disadvantaged as they'd be without their extra vote or two, but still disadvantaged.
Candidates for President rarely if ever campaign in larger states because we have less pull than the smaller states do.
Nonsense. They focus their campaigning on the states whose vote isn't a foregone conclusion. Obama didn't need to campaign in California or New York, and there was no point in him campaigning in Texas. Both Obama and Romney spent lots of time in Florida, however; a swing state with 25 electoral votes is important to them.
Absolutely agreed. If you need to do a refit anyway, the incremental cost of adding insulation is small relative to the payoff. Insulating for its own sake may also be a good investment, but the return is less certain and longer-term.
What's the practical difference between being able to log in to root and being able to log in to a member of the sudoers group?
The attacker has to guess/discover a username in the sudoers group as well as brute-force the password space. If the attack is targeted, that doesn't help. If it's random, it can be a big help.
One of my colleagues has a similar story. He used to work for UPS and one day got a call (or someone near him got a call, not sure) from a person complaining about receiving upwards of 30 calls per hour from people asking to have UPS pick up their packages. The problem was that the person's phone number happened to be (local area code)-742-5877 and all of the callers should have been dialing 1-800-742-5877 (1-800 PICK UPS).
The individual wanted UPS to do something to "fix" the problem, something that didn't require him to get a new phone number. Of course, there was nothing that UPS could do to stop the calls, so eventually the guy changed his number. I don't know if UPS then picked up the number, which seems like it would have been a good idea.
I notice that you never refuted the point that it does actually work. Instead you went off on a big tangent about whether or not it's natural or moral. Those are points worth discussing, but they don't affect my fundamental point that the allergy does, in fact, limit alcohol use.
As to the question of naturalness... I frankly don't care. Lots of things in my life are unnatural, for example the various vaccines that prevent me from getting all sorts of terrible diseases. And I'm not so sure that it really is "unnatural"... assuming it creates exactly the same situation that exists "naturally" in a non-trivial percentage of the population.
On the question of morality, I do agree that, for example, a court ordering a drunk driver to get vaccinated against alcohol is on really shaky moral grounds. Vaccinating your kids... that I'm not so sure. You may argue that a parent who does that is depriving their children of the opportunity to enjoy something. I'd argue that the enjoyment in question is at least partially illusory, and that given that there's a history of severely damaging alcoholism in my family, eliminating the risk of the latter is well worth giving up the former.
Should I make that decision on their behalf? Sure! Parents make all sorts of serious, life-altering decisions for their kids. For a very relevant example, I've inculcated in my kids that alcohol and other mind-altering drugs are bad. I'm fairly certain that the idea has taken root in three of the four, just as it did in me when my parents did the same (I've never had a drink in my life, nor have I ever used any drugs recreationally). Granted that they still have a choice, and indeed one of them has chosen otherwise, though I know she's very conflicted about it, but how different is that, really?
How different would it be to vaccinate my kids against alcohol rather than try to seek out a mate with the allergy, hoping that they'd get it? Or even go a step further and screen zygotes for the allergy? That'd be natural, right? Would it be any more or less moral than vaccinating?
Or, what about screening kids after birth for a genetic pre-disposition to alcoholism, and vaccinating them to give them another pre-disposition to counter it? That alcoholism is often genetically pre-disposed is well-known, though I don't know if we know enough to screen for it.
And what about adults who consciously choose to get vaccinated? Is that wrong? I know a number of alcoholics who would do it in a heartbeat (when they're on the wagon). Of course, its efficacy for those situations is questionable, but from everything I know about it antabuse works very well at deterring drinking; where it breaks down is that alcoholics stop taking it.
IMO, this sort of therapy shows a lot of promise. It's not a panacea by any means. But it could well prevent a lot of alcoholism, which is terribly destructive and costs society billions.
I also know someone with this intolerance, who still drinks: she's actually pretty good about it though, only having tiny little sips with company of some good wine, and nothing more.
So what you're saying is that it works. And in saying that you're agreeing with several other posters who said "It took me years to figure out I can't drink without feeling horrible, so now I never have more than one drink per day".
to reverse the process someone has undergone by drinking long and hard
Or to prevent it entirely. If you grew up knowing you'd had the vaccine and that every time you had more than a single drink you'd feel horrible for days (and the more you drank the worse it would get), how likely would you be to drink "long and hard"?
We are heading into a Mobile OS monoculture dominated by Google/Android to thundering applause from half the people on this forum.
That's far better than a mobile OS monoculture dominated by the likes of Apple or Microsoft. Not because of anything about Google, but because Android is open. Should Google become too controlling, others can simply fork the OS, like Amazon has done.. For that matter the Ubuntu phone OS is arguably a fork of Android, since it's using the Android kernel.
I argue that the world would be much better off if some flavor of Linux were the dominant desktop/laptop OS as well. An open monoculture is easy to diversify. A closed monoculture, not so much. Indeed, the biggest common complaint about the Android ecosystem is fragmentation -- i.e. that it's already not a very homogeneous monoculture.
a few big ones (Google, IBM) saw what was coming much sooner than most and also run non-MS desktops
IBM? Hmm. It's been a couple of years since I left IBM, but back then desktops and laptops almost all ran Windows. Plenty of technical people ran Linux on their machines and there was an officially-supported internal distro, but it was far from the norm.
At Google (where I work now), Linux really is the norm on desktops. On laptops it's probably 60% OS X, 30% Linux and 10% ChromeOS, though Chromebooks seem to be replacing MacBooks at a good clip, so the first and last numbers are changing. Windows does exist, and I think just about anybody can get it if they want it, but you have to ask for it specifically; it's not on the normal menu of choices. Based on personal observation, I'd say Windows has about 2% share of laptops and significantly less than that on desktops. Of course, all of my numbers come from looking at my engineering-heavy environment. Less technical parts of the company may be different -- but I actually doubt it.
A gasoline-burning car is probably less polluting than a coal-burning electrical plant.
Absolutely not.
Modern large-scale coal plants are both substantially more efficient and much cleaner. They also tend to be in better locations.
In terms of particulates, because coal plants operate at much higher temperatures (for a more complete burn) and can use much larger and more effective scrubbers, gasoline engines are much worse -- even with a catalytic converter installed. Ditto for sulfur and other chemical pollutants. And we can typically put those coal plants well away from other major pollution sources to spread the pain, while automobile exhausts are concentrated where people are.
Coal plants emit lots of CO2, of course, but because they're more efficient at converting the fossil fuel into usable energy, the mileage per ton of CO2 generated is greater. There are also more opportunities for the CO2 to be captured and sequestered, which is far less feasible in hundreds of millions of tiny power plants.
Then there's also the fact that EVs can recover a significant amount of their kinetic energy by regenerative braking, making them lower energy consumers. Of course, gasoline-burning hybrids can do this as well, so it's a weaker argument.
Energy to power EVs is much, much cleaner than that for gas burners. EV construction is probably a little "dirtier" than gas burner construction, though, because of the big batteries. On the other hand, EVs tend to be simpler and lighter than ICE vehicles, which may offset some of that.
Everybody sensible already knows you can, but people are afraid of investments. Of course insulation pays back quite soon but people are afraid of investments.
Nonsense.
People aren't afraid of investments. Business, to a first approximation, is nothing but investment: "How should I employ my available resources to generate the best return?".
If the expected rate of return on an investment in insulation is better than the return obtainable by putting the same money elsewhere, then businesses will install insulation. If they don't, it's usually because it's not the best return they can get.
The example of the Empire State building isn't a good one, because the investment was effectively heavily subsidized by the rest of the renovation project. Only a small part of the cost of insulation is the actual insulation, most of it is the process of getting to where the insulation needs to be installed, and when you're already doing a renovation which requires that anyway, then that cost disappears. The result is that the incremental cost of adding the insulation is very low, which makes for a very rapid return on that incremental investment.
As energy prices rise, investments in insulation will make sense in more and more cases. If you want to accelerate that process, all you have to do is make insulation cheaper or energy more expensive.
Because the people who are paying the operating costs aren't the ones building the buildings.
Like hell they aren't. The people who pay the operating costs are the ones who buy the buildings, and if you think operating costs aren't a factor when people evaluate a property purchase, especially a commercial property purchase, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
This is why you should carry pepper spray if you carry a gun.
There is a large class of scenarios in which you put yourself at great legal risk if you go immediately to deadly force as a response -- and remember that in most states merely drawing a gun is threatening deadly force, which constitutes aggravated assault (or whatever the state calls it). The problem is that in those same situations there's a possibility that your opponent may realize you have a gun and go for it, which can leave you in a very bad situation.
It's very valuable to have a non-lethal (legally, at least) at-a-distance self-defense option.
Exactly.
What you describe wouldn't really work; it doesn't overlay your whole field of vision. It could, however, project the manual where you can look at it easily just by looking up and to the right, and you could use voice commands to navigate to what you need to see.
I've been watching the application stream on Google+ and so far the most interesting applications are all about what can be done with a voice-controlled camera on your head. So, like a GoPro, but smaller, lighter and more hands-free -- as well as with an Internet connection and the ability to interact with apps and people.
One I saw was from a surgeon who'd like to use it to record and share operations, interact with peers to get suggestions, etc. Think about doing a Hangout On-Air with an expert in the particular surgery you're doing, able to talk and get answers during the surgery, with the remote expert able to see exactly what you're doing, then to have it all recorded for future use. There are a lot of people with similar ideas in different fields.
Another was from a search and rescue guy, who wants to outfit his whole team with them, to provide real-time, hands-free communications and maps, with all of the rescuers plotted, and to be able to do audio or video communications between team members, and to share video streams.
Another was from a filmmaker who wants to explore using Glass to make a full-length feature film.
I think these sorts of innovative uses are what Google is looking for.
do I need to have information projected constantly over my field of vision
FYI, "over my field of vision" isn't a good characterization of Glass. It's more like having a screen floating a few feet from your head, above and to the right. It's not in the central part of your visual field.
That's the real problem. If you have a great idea, exposing it to every twitter twit before you can implement it would be a strategic error.
This is a program for beta test users, not developers. If you are a developer and have an awesome app idea, you should apply through the developer program.
I'd walk into a wall.
Seriously, what about those of us who already have glasses? I guess I'm not hip enough. :(
Looking at some of the pictures, it seems like it should be pretty straightforward to add prescription lenses. For example, look at the model with tinted lenses attached near the bottom of this page. If your optometrist can get some lenses manufactured in that same shape, you should be able to screw them on just like the tinted lens.
From what I hear, the image projected through the glass block appears to be floating at some distance from you (maybe 5-10 feet), so as long as your prescription allows you to comfortably focus at that distance through the top of your lens, you should be able to see the screen. So even bifocals should be fine. I'm not sure about trifocals.
When a user is found to be the victim of a phishing attack, put them on a daily password reset for a week or month.
The victims tend to learn from all the inconvenience caused by the attack itself. It's everyone that didn't get phished you need to reach.
Perhaps the solution is to send out a university-sponsored phishing attack, then conduct an Internet-safety education seminar for everyone who falls for it.
> Anyone who thinks that sending all my keystrokes to their server...
Well. Not ALL keystrokes. Just Unity Dash searches. Doesn't Android's integrated search bar do something like this too? Not that it makes it OK of course.
I don't think so. Android's search bar does the same "instant search" thing that google.com does, so it sends each keystroke to Google for predictive search. And Google, of course, keeps track of what you search for (unless you opt out) to help target ads. However, Google doesn't send your data to anyone else.
(Disclaimer: I work for Google, but not on these products and it's possible that I'm wrong. I don't think I am, though.)
I do not have the time, once again, to look up those obscure keyboard commands so that I may navigate laboriously through the documentation.
What obscure keyboard commands? They're just the keybindings for the help system of the One True Editor. If you are using something inferior and have therefore memorized some truly obscure keyboard commands instead, how is that their fault?
The problem is the small state bonus.
The small state bonus doesn't exist. Part of the Electoral College design was intended to give small states a boost, so they're not completely dominated by their larger brethren, but the founders didn't have the mathematics necessary to really understand the effect of their design. We do now, and the conclusion you reach by evaluating the situation according to the various vote power measures is that in fact the reverse is true. The power of bloc voting means that power disproportionately accrues to large blocs, which means large states in this context.
If all states were to allocate their electoral votes proportionally, then small states really would get a boost. As it is, they're actually disadvantaged by the system. Not as disadvantaged as they'd be without their extra vote or two, but still disadvantaged.
Candidates for President rarely if ever campaign in larger states because we have less pull than the smaller states do.
Nonsense. They focus their campaigning on the states whose vote isn't a foregone conclusion. Obama didn't need to campaign in California or New York, and there was no point in him campaigning in Texas. Both Obama and Romney spent lots of time in Florida, however; a swing state with 25 electoral votes is important to them.
We are heading into a Mobile OS monoculture dominated by Google/Android to thundering applause from half the people on this forum.
That's far better than a mobile OS monoculture dominated by the likes of Apple or Microsoft.
Nice try, but Android is a Samsung monoculture.
Funny, my phone was made by Motorola.
Absolutely agreed. If you need to do a refit anyway, the incremental cost of adding insulation is small relative to the payoff. Insulating for its own sake may also be a good investment, but the return is less certain and longer-term.
If the lasers can evaporate a 500m object in a year's time, they should be able to alter the orbit of a 1 km object enough to make it miss.
Have you reinforced your home's roof to resist meteorite impacts? No? Then why do you expect the entire human race to?
I have insurance to address the possibility of small impacts.
Using insurance to spread financial risks doesn't work for impacts that take out a significant portion of the human race.
What's the practical difference between being able to log in to root and being able to log in to a member of the sudoers group?
The attacker has to guess/discover a username in the sudoers group as well as brute-force the password space. If the attack is targeted, that doesn't help. If it's random, it can be a big help.
One of my colleagues has a similar story. He used to work for UPS and one day got a call (or someone near him got a call, not sure) from a person complaining about receiving upwards of 30 calls per hour from people asking to have UPS pick up their packages. The problem was that the person's phone number happened to be (local area code)-742-5877 and all of the callers should have been dialing 1-800-742-5877 (1-800 PICK UPS).
The individual wanted UPS to do something to "fix" the problem, something that didn't require him to get a new phone number. Of course, there was nothing that UPS could do to stop the calls, so eventually the guy changed his number. I don't know if UPS then picked up the number, which seems like it would have been a good idea.
Hopefully Apple doesn't patent this invention.
Don't be silly. You can't patent a store.
Apple trademarked their stores.
I notice that you never refuted the point that it does actually work. Instead you went off on a big tangent about whether or not it's natural or moral. Those are points worth discussing, but they don't affect my fundamental point that the allergy does, in fact, limit alcohol use.
As to the question of naturalness... I frankly don't care. Lots of things in my life are unnatural, for example the various vaccines that prevent me from getting all sorts of terrible diseases. And I'm not so sure that it really is "unnatural"... assuming it creates exactly the same situation that exists "naturally" in a non-trivial percentage of the population.
On the question of morality, I do agree that, for example, a court ordering a drunk driver to get vaccinated against alcohol is on really shaky moral grounds. Vaccinating your kids... that I'm not so sure. You may argue that a parent who does that is depriving their children of the opportunity to enjoy something. I'd argue that the enjoyment in question is at least partially illusory, and that given that there's a history of severely damaging alcoholism in my family, eliminating the risk of the latter is well worth giving up the former.
Should I make that decision on their behalf? Sure! Parents make all sorts of serious, life-altering decisions for their kids. For a very relevant example, I've inculcated in my kids that alcohol and other mind-altering drugs are bad. I'm fairly certain that the idea has taken root in three of the four, just as it did in me when my parents did the same (I've never had a drink in my life, nor have I ever used any drugs recreationally). Granted that they still have a choice, and indeed one of them has chosen otherwise, though I know she's very conflicted about it, but how different is that, really?
How different would it be to vaccinate my kids against alcohol rather than try to seek out a mate with the allergy, hoping that they'd get it? Or even go a step further and screen zygotes for the allergy? That'd be natural, right? Would it be any more or less moral than vaccinating?
Or, what about screening kids after birth for a genetic pre-disposition to alcoholism, and vaccinating them to give them another pre-disposition to counter it? That alcoholism is often genetically pre-disposed is well-known, though I don't know if we know enough to screen for it.
And what about adults who consciously choose to get vaccinated? Is that wrong? I know a number of alcoholics who would do it in a heartbeat (when they're on the wagon). Of course, its efficacy for those situations is questionable, but from everything I know about it antabuse works very well at deterring drinking; where it breaks down is that alcoholics stop taking it.
IMO, this sort of therapy shows a lot of promise. It's not a panacea by any means. But it could well prevent a lot of alcoholism, which is terribly destructive and costs society billions.
I also know someone with this intolerance, who still drinks: she's actually pretty good about it though, only having tiny little sips with company of some good wine, and nothing more.
So what you're saying is that it works. And in saying that you're agreeing with several other posters who said "It took me years to figure out I can't drink without feeling horrible, so now I never have more than one drink per day".
to reverse the process someone has undergone by drinking long and hard
Or to prevent it entirely. If you grew up knowing you'd had the vaccine and that every time you had more than a single drink you'd feel horrible for days (and the more you drank the worse it would get), how likely would you be to drink "long and hard"?
We are heading into a Mobile OS monoculture dominated by Google/Android to thundering applause from half the people on this forum.
That's far better than a mobile OS monoculture dominated by the likes of Apple or Microsoft. Not because of anything about Google, but because Android is open. Should Google become too controlling, others can simply fork the OS, like Amazon has done.. For that matter the Ubuntu phone OS is arguably a fork of Android, since it's using the Android kernel.
I argue that the world would be much better off if some flavor of Linux were the dominant desktop/laptop OS as well. An open monoculture is easy to diversify. A closed monoculture, not so much. Indeed, the biggest common complaint about the Android ecosystem is fragmentation -- i.e. that it's already not a very homogeneous monoculture.
a few big ones (Google, IBM) saw what was coming much sooner than most and also run non-MS desktops
IBM? Hmm. It's been a couple of years since I left IBM, but back then desktops and laptops almost all ran Windows. Plenty of technical people ran Linux on their machines and there was an officially-supported internal distro, but it was far from the norm.
At Google (where I work now), Linux really is the norm on desktops. On laptops it's probably 60% OS X, 30% Linux and 10% ChromeOS, though Chromebooks seem to be replacing MacBooks at a good clip, so the first and last numbers are changing. Windows does exist, and I think just about anybody can get it if they want it, but you have to ask for it specifically; it's not on the normal menu of choices. Based on personal observation, I'd say Windows has about 2% share of laptops and significantly less than that on desktops. Of course, all of my numbers come from looking at my engineering-heavy environment. Less technical parts of the company may be different -- but I actually doubt it.
We have more people than jobs
This one statement makes clear that you didn't take a decent economics course when you were in college.
A gasoline-burning car is probably less polluting than a coal-burning electrical plant.
Absolutely not.
Modern large-scale coal plants are both substantially more efficient and much cleaner. They also tend to be in better locations.
In terms of particulates, because coal plants operate at much higher temperatures (for a more complete burn) and can use much larger and more effective scrubbers, gasoline engines are much worse -- even with a catalytic converter installed. Ditto for sulfur and other chemical pollutants. And we can typically put those coal plants well away from other major pollution sources to spread the pain, while automobile exhausts are concentrated where people are.
Coal plants emit lots of CO2, of course, but because they're more efficient at converting the fossil fuel into usable energy, the mileage per ton of CO2 generated is greater. There are also more opportunities for the CO2 to be captured and sequestered, which is far less feasible in hundreds of millions of tiny power plants.
Then there's also the fact that EVs can recover a significant amount of their kinetic energy by regenerative braking, making them lower energy consumers. Of course, gasoline-burning hybrids can do this as well, so it's a weaker argument.
Energy to power EVs is much, much cleaner than that for gas burners. EV construction is probably a little "dirtier" than gas burner construction, though, because of the big batteries. On the other hand, EVs tend to be simpler and lighter than ICE vehicles, which may offset some of that.
Everybody sensible already knows you can, but people are afraid of investments. Of course insulation pays back quite soon but people are afraid of investments.
Nonsense.
People aren't afraid of investments. Business, to a first approximation, is nothing but investment: "How should I employ my available resources to generate the best return?".
If the expected rate of return on an investment in insulation is better than the return obtainable by putting the same money elsewhere, then businesses will install insulation. If they don't, it's usually because it's not the best return they can get.
The example of the Empire State building isn't a good one, because the investment was effectively heavily subsidized by the rest of the renovation project. Only a small part of the cost of insulation is the actual insulation, most of it is the process of getting to where the insulation needs to be installed, and when you're already doing a renovation which requires that anyway, then that cost disappears. The result is that the incremental cost of adding the insulation is very low, which makes for a very rapid return on that incremental investment.
As energy prices rise, investments in insulation will make sense in more and more cases. If you want to accelerate that process, all you have to do is make insulation cheaper or energy more expensive.
Oops, forgot something in my response.
Because the people who are paying the operating costs aren't the ones building the buildings.
Like hell they aren't. The people who pay the operating costs are the ones who buy the buildings, and if you think operating costs aren't a factor when people evaluate a property purchase, especially a commercial property purchase, you have no idea what you're talking about.