Antarctica wasn't always icebound. Once it would have been filled with life until plate tectonics moved it to the south pole. So there is a significant difference to the likes of Mars and moons orbiting the gas giants in that life under the ice first evolved under different conditions somewhere else and has adapted to the changing conditions as the land iced over.
I'm of the opinion that there has been a big shift in shareholder expectations over the last thirty or forty years. Sometimes I wonder if it is related to a rise in large institutional investors often being the largest shareholders but I have no knowledge on the subject to substantiate that hypothesis.
So, demonstrably false some time ago. My US history is quite poor but I'm guessing about a century ago?
The world's slightly different now and the primary duty of any company is to it's shareholders, so it is more likely that unprofitable areas would just be ditched rather than being permitted to lower overall profits. Maybe once upon a time it was fine if a company still turned an overall profit even if part of the business wasn't generating as much revenue as the rest but now the shareholders wouldn't tolerate that.
Absolutely. If reality doesn't fit your political dogma, then when given the opportunity you simply change either reality or peoples' perception of it.
What makes that ironic is that from seeing maps of state presidential election results; the GOP votes seem to dominate areas that a private enterprise performing mail carriage wouldn't go near because they'd be unprofitable.
Competition for postal services in a big country won't work. It's only profitable to deal with the high population centers because low population areas would hit profits too much to be worth doing.
Kind of like a cable infrastructure for internet in a way.
The first paragraph is opinion, the second paragraph factual and really just indicate a distrust of corporations which I wouldn't really label as socialist. Enterprise is fine but corporations seem to be only on course to abuse.
This idea will spread if corporations can profit it from it. Expect to see "proprietary" metering coming to electricity, gas, water, fuel and anything else that can be metered.
And of course they would treat customers like that. The primary constituency that a corporation is focused on is the shareholders and they are deemed far more important than customers, who come further down the priority list. Customers are still more important than the corporation's rank and file staff though, if that offers any solace.
It was a bad label in the first place. I wonder if whoever coined it even suspected that decades later people would still be quibbling about the semantics instead of the actual cause.
Hopefully the Republicans can find a better candidate than a used car salesman next time. And hire a better IT staff.
And don't have an agenda that only benefits a shrinking percentage of the population; or at least don't piss off the growing part of the electorate so much.
Yes, I have often made the point about oil to friends making this claim because it seems unlikely that the civilizations could reach, or as some claim exceed, current technology levels without using fossil fuel.
Those speculative civilizations also don't seem to have used nuclear fission for energy. Not just because there's no evidence of uranium sources being depleted before we discovered it, but it doesn't seem that the by-products from it have ever found as "naturally occurring".
and, for some reason, the site of Saturday Night Live
It's not broadcast here but 4 years ago it got media mention because of Tina Fey's Sarah Palin impersonation. Have they perhaps hurt the feelings of a particular candidate's supporters this time round?
What you are neglecting is that corporations are, ultimately, owned by people, and those people will take the profits and spend them
Yes, but it's a fraction of the total populace and their expenditure tends to be just in niche luxury markets and often in tax haven countries, so it's a negligible contribution to most economies. "Trickle-down" just doesn't seem to work like some people always claim it will.
Also, those spent profits won't be on job creation either.
Think I might go build a mountain city in Scotland
Just to warn you then, the weather here has been more shite than usual lately. Maybe better than other places in the world but the recent decade has been much worse than the previous three. I can't comment on weather prior to that on account of being too young to remember and ultimately not even existing.
I think that the Royal Navy might get slightly miffed about people doing that. Whether or not they could do anything about it is another matter. British Armed forces probably don't get much of a legal budget for pursuing these things.
It seems slightly strange that when a lot of effort is devoted to improving power efficiency this is championed when it's just favouring convenience over efficiency. Maybe one day people will regret that.
The summary is all about defending POTUS against this, but would either political party be very inconvenienced over losing their nominal figurehead? It would probably cause a temporary drop in worldwide market values but political agendas would be unchanged and it would probably provide an opportune moment to implicate an unwanted faction and clamp down further on individual freedoms.
Well, it could be spun for or against either candidate.
That's the problem with self-styled religious oracles claiming omens, it's always down to their personal agenda and there's nothing divine about that. The simple truth is that shit happens and the universe is indifferent.
Slashdot Mirror
Antarctica wasn't always icebound. Once it would have been filled with life until plate tectonics moved it to the south pole. So there is a significant difference to the likes of Mars and moons orbiting the gas giants in that life under the ice first evolved under different conditions somewhere else and has adapted to the changing conditions as the land iced over.
So what they're looking for is evidence of an impulsive, short-sighted species like us.
It will probably be associated with evidence that the species no longer exists.
I'm of the opinion that there has been a big shift in shareholder expectations over the last thirty or forty years. Sometimes I wonder if it is related to a rise in large institutional investors often being the largest shareholders but I have no knowledge on the subject to substantiate that hypothesis.
Wasn't the last "earth-shaking" announcement that of bacteria using arsenic instead of phosphorus in their molecular construction?
They'll want to be very sure about whatever it is before going public.
So, demonstrably false some time ago. My US history is quite poor but I'm guessing about a century ago?
The world's slightly different now and the primary duty of any company is to it's shareholders, so it is more likely that unprofitable areas would just be ditched rather than being permitted to lower overall profits. Maybe once upon a time it was fine if a company still turned an overall profit even if part of the business wasn't generating as much revenue as the rest but now the shareholders wouldn't tolerate that.
Absolutely. If reality doesn't fit your political dogma, then when given the opportunity you simply change either reality or peoples' perception of it.
It has already worked for a long, long time.
What makes that ironic is that from seeing maps of state presidential election results; the GOP votes seem to dominate areas that a private enterprise performing mail carriage wouldn't go near because they'd be unprofitable.
Competition for postal services in a big country won't work. It's only profitable to deal with the high population centers because low population areas would hit profits too much to be worth doing.
Kind of like a cable infrastructure for internet in a way.
The first paragraph is opinion, the second paragraph factual and really just indicate a distrust of corporations which I wouldn't really label as socialist. Enterprise is fine but corporations seem to be only on course to abuse.
And mouse gesturing has been a feature of, at least, the Opera browser some time.
an ever decreasing minority of wealthy families just become more wealthy.
FTFY
The offspring don't have to be smart to acquire more wealth. Accountants and fund managers take care of that for them.
rotten politics
Yeah, our politics are rotten beyond the comprehension of someone who lived in Ancient Greece.
This idea will spread if corporations can profit it from it. Expect to see "proprietary" metering coming to electricity, gas, water, fuel and anything else that can be metered.
And of course they would treat customers like that. The primary constituency that a corporation is focused on is the shareholders and they are deemed far more important than customers, who come further down the priority list. Customers are still more important than the corporation's rank and file staff though, if that offers any solace.
It was a bad label in the first place. I wonder if whoever coined it even suspected that decades later people would still be quibbling about the semantics instead of the actual cause.
Ah, the silver lining to the story.
Hopefully the Republicans can find a better candidate than a used car salesman next time. And hire a better IT staff.
And don't have an agenda that only benefits a shrinking percentage of the population; or at least don't piss off the growing part of the electorate so much.
Yes, I have often made the point about oil to friends making this claim because it seems unlikely that the civilizations could reach, or as some claim exceed, current technology levels without using fossil fuel.
Those speculative civilizations also don't seem to have used nuclear fission for energy. Not just because there's no evidence of uranium sources being depleted before we discovered it, but it doesn't seem that the by-products from it have ever found as "naturally occurring".
and, for some reason, the site of Saturday Night Live
It's not broadcast here but 4 years ago it got media mention because of Tina Fey's Sarah Palin impersonation. Have they perhaps hurt the feelings of a particular candidate's supporters this time round?
What you are neglecting is that corporations are, ultimately, owned by people, and those people will take the profits and spend them
Yes, but it's a fraction of the total populace and their expenditure tends to be just in niche luxury markets and often in tax haven countries, so it's a negligible contribution to most economies. "Trickle-down" just doesn't seem to work like some people always claim it will.
Also, those spent profits won't be on job creation either.
Think I might go build a mountain city in Scotland
Just to warn you then, the weather here has been more shite than usual lately. Maybe better than other places in the world but the recent decade has been much worse than the previous three. I can't comment on weather prior to that on account of being too young to remember and ultimately not even existing.
I think that the Royal Navy might get slightly miffed about people doing that. Whether or not they could do anything about it is another matter. British Armed forces probably don't get much of a legal budget for pursuing these things.
It seems slightly strange that when a lot of effort is devoted to improving power efficiency this is championed when it's just favouring convenience over efficiency. Maybe one day people will regret that.
So why do Java coders turn to Eclipse?
I don't know. I just don't know.
The summary is all about defending POTUS against this, but would either political party be very inconvenienced over losing their nominal figurehead? It would probably cause a temporary drop in worldwide market values but political agendas would be unchanged and it would probably provide an opportune moment to implicate an unwanted faction and clamp down further on individual freedoms.
Well, it could be spun for or against either candidate.
That's the problem with self-styled religious oracles claiming omens, it's always down to their personal agenda and there's nothing divine about that. The simple truth is that shit happens and the universe is indifferent.