I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that this consumes far more energy than it "creates".
P:
does that really matter if they are going to power it using renewable energy?
Energy is a scarce resource, so yes it matters.
What DOESN'T matter is this "green" or "renewable" bullshit.
There's nothing wrong with preferentially using a finite energy source first because it's cheaper until the prices rise to be on par with solar (or other "renewables" which are just heat pumps based on solar).
They change their positions because this issue is part of The Agenda.
This is something the ruling class has been doing for a long time in England. When an issue is part of The Agenda, something the power elite wants passed that harms the public, the government always pushes for it and the shadow government who is powerless to stop it voices opposition.
Then the people vote the government out and the shadow government in and they switch positions. Now that the new government is in power they start being for the issue and now that the old government is out of power they can afford to be against it.
Hi Linus, thank you for providing the intellect and good will that helped allow me to experience 15 years of happy GNU/Linux usage.
For me GNU/Linux was the gateway not just to happier and more rewarding computing experience, but also the development of a set of beliefs that shape the way I understand economy, politics and Liberty.
I see the success of the Linux kernel as something that could only have been brought about by the protections granted it via the GPL, these protections that allow free exchange of ideas and collaboration in a very similar way to a capitalist unhampered economy. Each individual is able to make their own decisions about how to use their available means in the ways that they see fit to achieve their most valued ends. In both cases, value is something that is specific to an individual at a specified time and the only way to maximize for value is to allow individuals to reward those efforts that are most efficient at producing value.
In both the Free Software world and an unhampered economy, those efforts with good foresight are rewarded with money, fame, success and the ability leverage even more of this for future endeavors.
I believe, this is similar to allowing efforts and ideas to live by Darwinian competition, with the outcomes thus improving society in a way that benefits every individual in a non-Darwinian way.
Because of this I could say that the GNU/Linux was the catalyst that steered me directly into the Libertarian camp, Austrian economics and the philosophies of of Ron Paul.
What are your thoughts about the similarities between Liberty in the software world and political and economic Liberty?
Are these things that can be separated or are they ultimately interconnected? How can one be politically free if they are not free economically? How can political and economic Liberty be maintained in a world where people increasingly accept life in walled gardens?
Where do you agree or disagree with Libertarians in general or Ron Paul specifically?
Do you ever disagree with Richard Stallman and if so, why?
My my, what a load of little totalitarianists we have on Slashdot.
It seems so easy for some power hungry and repressed social misfits to suggest bringing the force of the armed government thugs down on any little habit they don't like these days. Yeah, let's SWAT raid someone's house because they chewed some tobacco. Great idea.
I'm seeing a lot of idiots here that are happy to call for enforcement at the job, off the job and now let's make it against the law altogether to smoke.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Stated another way, it is the right of the people to abolish ANY government that becomes destructive to the people's pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness.
Happiness is always subjective and temporal. You cannot predict it, calculate it or mandate happiness. It belongs to the individual and the closest we can come to quantifying it is by allowing an unhampered economy to perform economic calculations and examine prices of ends and means relative to one another. Such an economy will deliver the most happiness to the greatest number of people.
Furthermore how can you be posting on Slashdot? Ye readers of ignorant of classic science fiction. Have you not read your Asimov? You cannot and should not go down the road where you try to protect humans from all risk. It leads to a life not worth living. Unfortunately, all of you little Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini wannabes will realize a little too late that you won't be the man or woman in charge of the oppressive government you try to construct and if you succeed, you will have lives not worth living by your own hands.
Also do you know any booth babes? Because I've met some very pretty ones that do claim to make a decent living out of it while having a lot of leisure time. Leisure time has great value to most people and can't be discounted in the equation.
Plus strippers can make over $1000 / night. I'm pretty sure that's more than the vast majority of women in science make per hour.
These are real professions whether they fit into your view of the world or not.
I wasn't really responding to the study and I don't read most of the study summaries on slashdot as they tend to be junk. I was responding to the general claim that's often made that men are paid more than women, therefore my first point is not invalidated.
You seem to invalidate my second point out of some moral ground; obviously you must realize that you can't invalidate an argument because you don't like it, that's just stupid. Women and men are very different in many ways and trying to create a world where people are blind to those differences is like trying to force strip clubs to hire 50% males. And if you don't like using little people in analogies, well go watch some 'Life's too short' as it's one of my favorite shows and grow some tolerance man. Obviously I wasn't being offensive except you took offense for no reason.
I don't know where in the US you work? Most of the companies I've worked for give 3 months of paid maternity leave to women and 1-3 weeks paid for men. Large companies. I'm pretty sure you are knocking this argument without actually having done any work to investigate.
Also, the ease with which you would like to waive your tyrannical regulations into existence is astonishing. Let's force companies at gunpoint to give men the same maternity leave as women, what a farce. You have no business dictating what people willingly do in their private employment agreements and it can only lead to inefficiency.
Comparing salaries alone is meaningless. That's only looking at one factor in a highly complex system that may not even be knowable and claiming you understand it all.
Males and females are not the same. There are biological and socio-cultural differences that are undeniable and to deny them is to deny reality. Let's explore some potential differences that do not rely on sexism:
males might be better at negotiating. Maybe males are just less prone to accepting the first offer thrown their way and more likely to push for an increase.This may or may not result in males being employed less often, for example they lose more jobs because they pushed too hard in the negotiation, but work for higher wages when they do have employment. There is some basis in science here, many experiments have shown that males tend to take more risks. If this is the case and females could immediately begin earning the same mean wage by just rejecting the first offer and attempting to negotiate more often, would you call this sexism if it is something under their own control? I would not.
Wages don't equate to perceived labor value. Maybe while 1 hour of male labor is perceived to have the same value as 1 hour of female labor, there are other factors involved that impact hiring cost, or number of hours. Wages might factor in the fact that females carry babies and males don't for example.
While each hour of female labor and male labor are as productive as each other, maybe employers understand that there is a non-zero chance of a female becoming pregnant and taking a longer maternity leave than the male. There's nothing wrong with factoring this into wage negotiations. It's not sexism if it is true.
maybe males somehow are better suited to that job in some way.
It cuts both ways. Have you ever been to an auto show? How many male 'booth babes' have you seen at such an event? There is a special cause variation for this job, females obviously perform much better at certain jobs by virtue of being female. Is this sexism, or is it just reflective of the reality we live in? Would you hire a little person to play for a basketball team or would you consider the fact that they just may not be suited for it?
You also don't see ANY male strippers at a strip club for men. Is that because of sexism too?
Comparing wages, does not control for any one of many other causes for wage difference. You can't just say it must be sexism without ruling all other plausible factors out first.
Now can I say it isn't because of sexism? No. But then again I'm not making that claim either.
If you actually look at the data from the studies that companies have performed, there are virtually zero current owners of electric vehicles that use or even want to use charging stations outside of their homes.
Just about all of them to the last man and woman, prefer to charge at home. Ah but what about long trips? They just don't take them in EVs. They take another method of transportation, as they should.
Just take a look at every charging station that's ever been installed for public use, they are abandoned.
Sadly, it's not this mystical infrastructure that's holding EVs back. IMHO the first factor is that their range is incompatible with the owners who could charge them. Most people who can live with a sub 100 mile range, live in the city and don't have a garage to charge the cars. Most people who do have a garage live in the suburbs and need more range. The actual number of suitable households has got to be fairly small.
Then theres the fact that they are mostly priced probably at 2x where they should. Supply and demand are not enough, they need to meet at the same price to clear the market. I might want an EV and I'm willing-to-pay $15k. If you're selling for $40k, I'm not buying.
What's most amusing, is watching these gigantic corporations try to innovate and fail. They have tremendous resources, but they're not set up to innovate. They're set up to scale up things. When they try to innovate they fail miserably. So if they can't do it, who will?
This is lovely. Let's worry about problems that don't exist, as if we don't have enough catastrophes to worry about.
Power is money. As long as there is a somewhat unhampered economy in the locus of data centers (and there is), then every entrepreneur will attempt to economize power usage. You don't have to worry about it because the entrepreneurs that use power efficiently will eat the lunch of those that do not, ceteris paribus (all other things equal).
Ipso facto this problem will solve itself. Case closed.
In fact, now that I speculate on the possible reasons for publicity like this to be drummed up, it is to campaign for government regulations that will instruct entrepreneurs how they 'must' handle such a problem. Unfortunately nobody can write such regulations because they cannot foresee every circumstance and possibility, much less predict the future. Nobody on this earth can even tell a single other person what ideal type and amount of preparation is for power efficiency considerations. This is why we have economic calculation.
If such regulations are enacted, ipso facto they will cause the problem itself.
If you knew anything about economics, you would understand that in an unhampered economy, people make money by providing services that help others economize, IE achieve their highest valued goals with their least valued means.
Stated differently: In an unhampered economy, businessmen who make a lot of money, do it because they provided consumers with a lot of benefit.
I thought I was clear when I said "human activity".
What I meant to say was "human action". This is a well defined economic term and you should reconsider what forms of taxation apply.
Here's a hint: I'm not talking about income taxes alone.
Also, you have to consider the taxation rate as what people actually pay, not what the popularized number that comes to your mind might be.
A propos, the income tax rate in the US has been set as high as 90% in the past. If you think the median or mean of pay rate was actually anywhere near that you are crazy.
Theoretically, the UK could try to accomplish this. The main barrier preventing any type of industry from flourishing in the UK is the obscenely high effective tax rate on human activity. (please give this typical figures, maybe in percentage if you're more familiar Brits)
The UK could then make an attempt to relieve a certain location and industry of these high taxation burdens to have the locus flourish.
The problem is that while this is a good move and should be applauded, simply cutting taxation on human activity without cutting the corresponding government spending doesn't solve much. The spending has to be paid for somehow, whether that is immediately by confiscating funds from other people and locations or somewhat delayed by building deficits and inflating the fiat money supply and thereby causing the mis-allocation of resources and bigger busts and recessions or depressions, people will continue to pay the piper.
The only sure way to encourage industry to flourish is to cut regulation and cut government taxation and spending. Remember, most government taxation is appropriating funds from a more effective use determined by the market, and instead putting them to less effective use as determined by bureaucrats.
I'll freely admit that I'm unfamiliar with trickle down economics, but this is slashdot so I feel completely entitled to chime in.
Trickle down says that you should give money to rich people first, so that eventually it finds its way to poorer people.
It seems to me you are vastly mis-characterizing trickle down economics. A better way to put it would be:
Trickle down says that you should let very productive individuals keep the wealth they earn so that they will be motivated and empowered continue to be productive and generate wealth or provide services that benefit others as well.
There's no giving of money to anyone. I'm not sure if you're familiar with a hard day's work, but that's what free market economics rewards. The idea is to let people keep what they earned through their own sweat instead of coming to take it at gunpoint by mob rule.
Of course you could go back to your illogical caricature if it's more comforting to you.
Hey you know what's good for justice? If we embed video cameras in your eyes and microphones in your ears and record everything on the CLOUD.
That way, if you ever break any laws, no matter how unjust they may be, we can make sure you are justly punished.
Of course why would you have anything to fear if you're innocent? Are you hiding something? Think of the CHILDREN. We have to DO SOMETHING about all this crime.
This guy is absolutely right, there are tens of thousands of Federal laws on the books and if you ask THE FEDS how many laws they have they cannot tell you because they can't keep track of them.
And it's not just importers of goods that can get wrapped up in laws from other Nations, there are several federal laws that say you are committing a felony if you violate any law in any international country, even if you were outside of the US at the time and if you were ignorant of the foreign law AND regardless of whether the foreign nation cares to prosecute you.
There's a reason why any sane defense attorney advises you to STFU under all circumstances and plead the 5th. Because even THEY cannot tell you with any certainty that what you are saying will not incriminate you of some crime, NOBODY can.
The vaccines protect against specific strains of virus. If another viral agent comes along and incorporates either, or both, strains into its genetic makeup and produces a viable virus, it is now transmissible whether the host is immunized or not.
This is actually not true. If the exposed proteins in the new strain display functional similarities to the original strain then there may be immune response.
Also, I don't think you understand the factors governing transmissibility.
Immunization may have provided the raw materials, but the product, once manufactured, no longer requires them.
Again, you're making assumptions here.
So if you forego immunization, you're vulnerable to all the strains the immunizations would have protected you against, as well as the new strain.
Vaccination != immunization. Also the fact that someone is not immune to a strain does not mean they will ever be exposed to it, while vaccinating guarantees exposure to whatever crap is in the vaccine.
So the anti-vaxxer is not only reducing herd immunity to the strains we can protect against, but also still just as vulnerable to the new virus.
You're making a lot of assumptions here. Also we're talking about chickens here and the best solution to prevent infections, proven time and time again, is to quarantine sick animals. The fact that they grow them in horrible conditions and don't even bother to check which ones are sick and quarantining them... Really it should be illegal to keep animals in these conditions and feed them high quantities of antibiotics, not only is that not a solution but it produces antibiotic resistance that do jump across species of bugs.
The only people who should be opting out of vaccines are those whose vaccination is counter-indicated due to a bona fide medical condition.
Again you're making a lot of assumptions here.
There are vaccines that are ineffective.
There are vaccines that require many shots before immunization can be acquired.
There are vaccines for illnesses that you're not likely to come into contact with.
There are vaccines for illnesses that don't have serious consequences for you.
There are vaccines from manufacturers that have been caught in the past falsifying safety or efficacy data.
There are vaccines from manufacturers who can't follow basic good manufacturing practices.
Then there are vaccines where the risk of the vaccine, IE frequency x severity, is greater than the risk of the illness.
If you aren't one of those people, and you refuse vaccination, your ass should be deported or jailed, as you pose a clear and present threat to public health -- you're in the same category to me as drunk drivers.
Actually, I believe that it's people like you who pose a clear and present danger to public health AND liberty. You're so blinded and ignorant that you refuse to understand the obvious fact in front of your face that vaccinations are medical procedures and as such have a risk / benefit analysis that must be performed by the doctor and the patient before administering them.
I also believe that medical procedures should always be left up to the discretion of the people who will be undergoing them and not in the hands of hysterical fuckers like you.
Yes because whenever you want to cloud an argument and get your despotic thuggery passed you say "think of the children!!!!"
Well fuck you and the high horse you rode in on.
Getting vaccinated is a medical procedure and as such all medical procedures have positive and negative consequences. Vaccines do have complications, some of these complications are very serious. In fact many vaccines are also ineffective. Look at the recent merc vaccine where it came out they were faking all the results by doping with animal antibodies.
You have no right to force a medical procedure on somebody else because of your hysteria. You are bordering on eugenics territory and I truly wish someone would strap you down to a surgical table and perform medical procedures on you against your will, maybe that would enlighten you.
As we did with small-pox, and polio in most of the world.
Could you please tell us where you got this idea? Because when you look at the facts, they are in direct opposition to this and I want to know where exactly the propaganda came from.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Ben Franklin.. sometime shortly before February 17, 1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, as published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that this consumes far more energy than it "creates".
P:
does that really matter if they are going to power it using renewable energy?
Energy is a scarce resource, so yes it matters.
What DOESN'T matter is this "green" or "renewable" bullshit.
There's nothing wrong with preferentially using a finite energy source first because it's cheaper until the prices rise to be on par with solar (or other "renewables" which are just heat pumps based on solar).
This is something the ruling class has been doing for a long time in England. When an issue is part of The Agenda, something the power elite wants passed that harms the public, the government always pushes for it and the shadow government who is powerless to stop it voices opposition.
Then the people vote the government out and the shadow government in and they switch positions. Now that the new government is in power they start being for the issue and now that the old government is out of power they can afford to be against it.
What's the solution?
Hi Linus, thank you for providing the intellect and good will that helped allow me to experience 15 years of happy GNU/Linux usage.
For me GNU/Linux was the gateway not just to happier and more rewarding computing experience, but also the development of a set of beliefs that shape the way I understand economy, politics and Liberty.
I see the success of the Linux kernel as something that could only have been brought about by the protections granted it via the GPL, these protections that allow free exchange of ideas and collaboration in a very similar way to a capitalist unhampered economy. Each individual is able to make their own decisions about how to use their available means in the ways that they see fit to achieve their most valued ends. In both cases, value is something that is specific to an individual at a specified time and the only way to maximize for value is to allow individuals to reward those efforts that are most efficient at producing value.
In both the Free Software world and an unhampered economy, those efforts with good foresight are rewarded with money, fame, success and the ability leverage even more of this for future endeavors.
I believe, this is similar to allowing efforts and ideas to live by Darwinian competition, with the outcomes thus improving society in a way that benefits every individual in a non-Darwinian way.
Because of this I could say that the GNU/Linux was the catalyst that steered me directly into the Libertarian camp, Austrian economics and the philosophies of of Ron Paul.
What are your thoughts about the similarities between Liberty in the software world and political and economic Liberty?
Are these things that can be separated or are they ultimately interconnected? How can one be politically free if they are not free economically? How can political and economic Liberty be maintained in a world where people increasingly accept life in walled gardens?
Where do you agree or disagree with Libertarians in general or Ron Paul specifically?
Do you ever disagree with Richard Stallman and if so, why?
Thanks!
My my, what a load of little totalitarianists we have on Slashdot.
It seems so easy for some power hungry and repressed social misfits to suggest bringing the force of the armed government thugs down on any little habit they don't like these days. Yeah, let's SWAT raid someone's house because they chewed some tobacco. Great idea.
I'm seeing a lot of idiots here that are happy to call for enforcement at the job, off the job and now let's make it against the law altogether to smoke.
Please, take a look again at the United States Declaration of independence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Stated another way, it is the right of the people to abolish ANY government that becomes destructive to the people's pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness.
Happiness is always subjective and temporal. You cannot predict it, calculate it or mandate happiness. It belongs to the individual and the closest we can come to quantifying it is by allowing an unhampered economy to perform economic calculations and examine prices of ends and means relative to one another. Such an economy will deliver the most happiness to the greatest number of people.
Furthermore how can you be posting on Slashdot? Ye readers of ignorant of classic science fiction. Have you not read your Asimov? You cannot and should not go down the road where you try to protect humans from all risk. It leads to a life not worth living. Unfortunately, all of you little Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini wannabes will realize a little too late that you won't be the man or woman in charge of the oppressive government you try to construct and if you succeed, you will have lives not worth living by your own hands.
Lord knows what they would have made of that.
God hates Twinks. Twinks burn in hell!
Or
She couldn't even reach the level cap?
Also do you know any booth babes? Because I've met some very pretty ones that do claim to make a decent living out of it while having a lot of leisure time. Leisure time has great value to most people and can't be discounted in the equation.
Plus strippers can make over $1000 / night. I'm pretty sure that's more than the vast majority of women in science make per hour.
These are real professions whether they fit into your view of the world or not.
I wasn't really responding to the study and I don't read most of the study summaries on slashdot as they tend to be junk. I was responding to the general claim that's often made that men are paid more than women, therefore my first point is not invalidated.
You seem to invalidate my second point out of some moral ground; obviously you must realize that you can't invalidate an argument because you don't like it, that's just stupid. Women and men are very different in many ways and trying to create a world where people are blind to those differences is like trying to force strip clubs to hire 50% males. And if you don't like using little people in analogies, well go watch some 'Life's too short' as it's one of my favorite shows and grow some tolerance man. Obviously I wasn't being offensive except you took offense for no reason.
I don't know where in the US you work? Most of the companies I've worked for give 3 months of paid maternity leave to women and 1-3 weeks paid for men. Large companies. I'm pretty sure you are knocking this argument without actually having done any work to investigate.
Also, the ease with which you would like to waive your tyrannical regulations into existence is astonishing. Let's force companies at gunpoint to give men the same maternity leave as women, what a farce. You have no business dictating what people willingly do in their private employment agreements and it can only lead to inefficiency.
The FREE ONE that is the subject of the article is EVEN BETTER. I love it.
Here's my dissenting view.
Comparing salaries alone is meaningless. That's only looking at one factor in a highly complex system that may not even be knowable and claiming you understand it all.
Males and females are not the same. There are biological and socio-cultural differences that are undeniable and to deny them is to deny reality. Let's explore some potential differences that do not rely on sexism:
Maybe males are just less prone to accepting the first offer thrown their way and more likely to push for an increase.This may or may not result in males being employed less often, for example they lose more jobs because they pushed too hard in the negotiation, but work for higher wages when they do have employment. There is some basis in science here, many experiments have shown that males tend to take more risks. If this is the case and females could immediately begin earning the same mean wage by just rejecting the first offer and attempting to negotiate more often, would you call this sexism if it is something under their own control? I would not.
While each hour of female labor and male labor are as productive as each other, maybe employers understand that there is a non-zero chance of a female becoming pregnant and taking a longer maternity leave than the male. There's nothing wrong with factoring this into wage negotiations. It's not sexism if it is true.
It cuts both ways. Have you ever been to an auto show? How many male 'booth babes' have you seen at such an event? There is a special cause variation for this job, females obviously perform much better at certain jobs by virtue of being female. Is this sexism, or is it just reflective of the reality we live in? Would you hire a little person to play for a basketball team or would you consider the fact that they just may not be suited for it?
You also don't see ANY male strippers at a strip club for men. Is that because of sexism too?
Comparing wages, does not control for any one of many other causes for wage difference. You can't just say it must be sexism without ruling all other plausible factors out first.
Now can I say it isn't because of sexism? No. But then again I'm not making that claim either.
If you actually look at the data from the studies that companies have performed, there are virtually zero current owners of electric vehicles that use or even want to use charging stations outside of their homes.
Just about all of them to the last man and woman, prefer to charge at home. Ah but what about long trips? They just don't take them in EVs. They take another method of transportation, as they should.
Just take a look at every charging station that's ever been installed for public use, they are abandoned.
Sadly, it's not this mystical infrastructure that's holding EVs back. IMHO the first factor is that their range is incompatible with the owners who could charge them. Most people who can live with a sub 100 mile range, live in the city and don't have a garage to charge the cars. Most people who do have a garage live in the suburbs and need more range. The actual number of suitable households has got to be fairly small.
Then theres the fact that they are mostly priced probably at 2x where they should. Supply and demand are not enough, they need to meet at the same price to clear the market. I might want an EV and I'm willing-to-pay $15k. If you're selling for $40k, I'm not buying.
What's most amusing, is watching these gigantic corporations try to innovate and fail. They have tremendous resources, but they're not set up to innovate. They're set up to scale up things. When they try to innovate they fail miserably. So if they can't do it, who will?
This is lovely. Let's worry about problems that don't exist, as if we don't have enough catastrophes to worry about.
Power is money. As long as there is a somewhat unhampered economy in the locus of data centers (and there is), then every entrepreneur will attempt to economize power usage. You don't have to worry about it because the entrepreneurs that use power efficiently will eat the lunch of those that do not, ceteris paribus (all other things equal).
Ipso facto this problem will solve itself. Case closed.
In fact, now that I speculate on the possible reasons for publicity like this to be drummed up, it is to campaign for government regulations that will instruct entrepreneurs how they 'must' handle such a problem. Unfortunately nobody can write such regulations because they cannot foresee every circumstance and possibility, much less predict the future. Nobody on this earth can even tell a single other person what ideal type and amount of preparation is for power efficiency considerations. This is why we have economic calculation.
If such regulations are enacted, ipso facto they will cause the problem itself.
In-your-endo
By the way, the higher personal income tax in the UK is 50%.
If you spend your money, theres a 20% sales tax. That's 70% and we haven't covered MANY other taxes.
Stated differently: In an unhampered economy, businessmen who make a lot of money, do it because they provided consumers with a lot of benefit.
What I meant to say was "human action". This is a well defined economic term and you should reconsider what forms of taxation apply.
Here's a hint: I'm not talking about income taxes alone.
Also, you have to consider the taxation rate as what people actually pay, not what the popularized number that comes to your mind might be.
A propos, the income tax rate in the US has been set as high as 90% in the past. If you think the median or mean of pay rate was actually anywhere near that you are crazy.
It's a pointless question. Let me explain:
Theoretically, the UK could try to accomplish this. The main barrier preventing any type of industry from flourishing in the UK is the obscenely high effective tax rate on human activity. (please give this typical figures, maybe in percentage if you're more familiar Brits)
The UK could then make an attempt to relieve a certain location and industry of these high taxation burdens to have the locus flourish.
The problem is that while this is a good move and should be applauded, simply cutting taxation on human activity without cutting the corresponding government spending doesn't solve much. The spending has to be paid for somehow, whether that is immediately by confiscating funds from other people and locations or somewhat delayed by building deficits and inflating the fiat money supply and thereby causing the mis-allocation of resources and bigger busts and recessions or depressions, people will continue to pay the piper.
The only sure way to encourage industry to flourish is to cut regulation and cut government taxation and spending. Remember, most government taxation is appropriating funds from a more effective use determined by the market, and instead putting them to less effective use as determined by bureaucrats.
I'll freely admit that I'm unfamiliar with trickle down economics, but this is slashdot so I feel completely entitled to chime in.
Trickle down says that you should give money to rich people first, so that eventually it finds its way to poorer people.
It seems to me you are vastly mis-characterizing trickle down economics. A better way to put it would be:
Trickle down says that you should let very productive individuals keep the wealth they earn so that they will be motivated and empowered continue to be productive and generate wealth or provide services that benefit others as well.
There's no giving of money to anyone. I'm not sure if you're familiar with a hard day's work, but that's what free market economics rewards. The idea is to let people keep what they earned through their own sweat instead of coming to take it at gunpoint by mob rule.
Of course you could go back to your illogical caricature if it's more comforting to you.
That way, if you ever break any laws, no matter how unjust they may be, we can make sure you are justly punished.
Of course why would you have anything to fear if you're innocent? Are you hiding something? Think of the CHILDREN. We have to DO SOMETHING about all this crime.
Why would this get modded Troll?
This guy is absolutely right, there are tens of thousands of Federal laws on the books and if you ask THE FEDS how many laws they have they cannot tell you because they can't keep track of them.
And it's not just importers of goods that can get wrapped up in laws from other Nations, there are several federal laws that say you are committing a felony if you violate any law in any international country, even if you were outside of the US at the time and if you were ignorant of the foreign law AND regardless of whether the foreign nation cares to prosecute you.
There's a reason why any sane defense attorney advises you to STFU under all circumstances and plead the 5th. Because even THEY cannot tell you with any certainty that what you are saying will not incriminate you of some crime, NOBODY can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
The vaccines protect against specific strains of virus. If another viral agent comes along and incorporates either, or both, strains into its genetic makeup and produces a viable virus, it is now transmissible whether the host is immunized or not.
This is actually not true. If the exposed proteins in the new strain display functional similarities to the original strain then there may be immune response. Also, I don't think you understand the factors governing transmissibility.
Immunization may have provided the raw materials, but the product, once manufactured, no longer requires them.
Again, you're making assumptions here.
So if you forego immunization, you're vulnerable to all the strains the immunizations would have protected you against, as well as the new strain.
Vaccination != immunization. Also the fact that someone is not immune to a strain does not mean they will ever be exposed to it, while vaccinating guarantees exposure to whatever crap is in the vaccine.
So the anti-vaxxer is not only reducing herd immunity to the strains we can protect against, but also still just as vulnerable to the new virus.
You're making a lot of assumptions here. Also we're talking about chickens here and the best solution to prevent infections, proven time and time again, is to quarantine sick animals. The fact that they grow them in horrible conditions and don't even bother to check which ones are sick and quarantining them... Really it should be illegal to keep animals in these conditions and feed them high quantities of antibiotics, not only is that not a solution but it produces antibiotic resistance that do jump across species of bugs.
The only people who should be opting out of vaccines are those whose vaccination is counter-indicated due to a bona fide medical condition.
Again you're making a lot of assumptions here.
If you aren't one of those people, and you refuse vaccination, your ass should be deported or jailed, as you pose a clear and present threat to public health -- you're in the same category to me as drunk drivers.
Actually, I believe that it's people like you who pose a clear and present danger to public health AND liberty. You're so blinded and ignorant that you refuse to understand the obvious fact in front of your face that vaccinations are medical procedures and as such have a risk / benefit analysis that must be performed by the doctor and the patient before administering them.
I also believe that medical procedures should always be left up to the discretion of the people who will be undergoing them and not in the hands of hysterical fuckers like you.
Well fuck you and the high horse you rode in on.
Getting vaccinated is a medical procedure and as such all medical procedures have positive and negative consequences. Vaccines do have complications, some of these complications are very serious. In fact many vaccines are also ineffective. Look at the recent merc vaccine where it came out they were faking all the results by doping with animal antibodies.
You have no right to force a medical procedure on somebody else because of your hysteria. You are bordering on eugenics territory and I truly wish someone would strap you down to a surgical table and perform medical procedures on you against your will, maybe that would enlighten you.
As we did with small-pox, and polio in most of the world.
Could you please tell us where you got this idea? Because when you look at the facts, they are in direct opposition to this and I want to know where exactly the propaganda came from.
You're a fucking sheep.
Every time RMS speaks, it's like he's expressing the way my soul feels.
It's like a beautiful piece of classical music, it just resonates with the way I feel.
Don't ever stop RMS.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Ben Franklin.. sometime shortly before February 17, 1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, as published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818).