Personally I think there's a huge difference between handing out money to corporations responsible to their shareholders and an the BBC who's responsibility is to fulfill a charter established by the people who are stumping up the cash (albeit via government).
Can you name any company that capped traffic and then lowered prices?
Do you mean immediately? I'm not sure you should expect to, most companies would implement the cap at a position which is sufficient to avoid annoying 99% of their existing customers, ie it won't reduce their immediate costs much at all, rather it will give them a control mechanism going forward.
That said caps don't bring much to consumers if there is just a one-size fits all cap. For there to be any consumer benefit a set of tiered caps need to be offered so the customer can choose a price point that meets their needs and not pay for what they don't use.
Some clueless person says this every time there is a story on credit cards.
Visa/MC do not end up paying. Merchants on the receiving end of fraudulent transactions do. Visa/MC may even profit from it as the fees they charge merchants for chargebacks can be quite steep.
Namely that a stronger economy (as a whole) leads to faster technological development and better technology means we will be better able to responsibly manage our environment.
I think that's a faulty assumption. I'll agree that a stronger economy will lead to faster technological development but I don't think that development is likely to be directed towards environmental efficiency without additional motivation (such as this measure). It's just not something that the economy as a whole is geared towards addressing.
Given that world view I hope you see how this pans out when applied to this specific case. Saving 123.6kwh per residence per year is a minuscule environmental benefit compared to other things that could be done and it diverts resources from other efforts could have a far greater environmental benefit.
If there were a genuine contention for resources then you'd have a point but the only one I can see is largely theoretical.
Ie I don't see how doing this in fact has a detrimental effect on other things that may also be done (or are also being done).
Choosing "those actions with maximum the benefit at minimal cost" is a reasonable idea but if you just sit on your hands while debating what is the "best" thing to do then you'll never get anything done out of fear that there might be something else you should be doing.
Certainly decisions should be evidence based but at the end of the day you need to choose a set of things look like they'll have a reasonable effect and get moving on them.
The consumption aspect of the problem is millions of people using lots of little bits of energy. The only way to make an impact on the consumption aspect of the problem is to reduce all those individual little bits.
The consumption part of the problem is inherently a cumulative effect and any inroads into it will necessarily involve many small boulders and lots of ants. There is no bulldozer for consumption.
They're comparing the "average LCD size" to the "average CRT size" which is something like comparing 30" LCD to 20" CRT, which is, of course, bullshit.
I'm not so sure it's bullshit.
If the idea is ultimately stop an increase in power usage due to TVs then it makes a fair bit of sense.
In that case you want the average power consumption on new TVs to be no more than the average consumption on old TVs.
Comparing averages between LCD and CRT screens might not be a perfect metric for that but it is probably good enough.
That is slightly modified for Sony and the PS3 as it pretty much won them the format war for HD video.
I don't know how you'd begin to calculate what that is/will be "worth" to them. Plus there are additional revenue streams these days (ie online purchases) that don't effect attach rate but could bring a lot of profit.
That said I think the Nintendo model makes a lot more sense.
t didn't lose any of its value. The value of a company is the amount of money it makes, it's assets, and it's ability to leverage those assets to additional money in the future. It's stock lost 60% of its value. Its stock losing value has no effect on its ability to continue making money in the future.
Indeed, the cause and effect is (largely) the other way round. A drop (or an expected drop) in a company's ability to make money in the future causes it's stock price to decrease.
Value is an appraisal and reasonably includes future expectations so the company has lost value by any reasonable meaning of the word.
How were the first set of papers served to the couple to get the default judgment?
At their house I imagine. I guess the first set of papers came as a bit of a surprise so they weren't in hiding at that time.
And it still doesn't seem to matter. They served the couple two sets of papers, and they still can't find them. What happens now?
Where the people are probably doesn't matter so much any more. Now the lien has been served the creditors can presumably move forwards and take possession of the house without needing any cooperation.
I guess if the debt extends past the value of the house then there may be further need to pursue them individually but otherwise it's probably done and dusted.
That said the last article I read said that the couple are back at the house now they have nothing to hide from so no doubt there will be some eviction shenanigans.
You have to feel sorry for them to some extent, losing your house in you 60s can't be a barrel of laughs but hiding away isn't the way to deal with it.
So the judge went for this whole stupid 'serve them over the interwebs' thing (idiot). Now what? What happens if they don't show up in court? Default judgment?
Default judgement has already happened in this case, the papers that were eventually "delivered" via Facebook were ones informing them that the default judgement had been rendered against them.
I suppose they could appeal this but that would probably require actually turning up in front of it which doesn't seem to be the way they work.
I think a causal link there is probably a bit of a stretch.
That said it's a convenient distraction from the backlash Conroy has been facing and it must be hard for a lot of Australian internet users to decide who they dislike more, Conroy or Telstra.
I the somewhat darker, desolate, lonlier tones of the doctor recently to be welcome.
I it too!
However, I think it is perhaps over-wrought in general. any 'positive' feelings equally overblown. The Doctor (and companion) seem to transition from maudlin to flippant within a fraction of a second.
For lack of a better term springing to mind the show seems bi-polar. Week in week out I find that a bit tiring to watch.
I wouldn't mind the next incarnation of The Doctor being a bit more enigmatic, I don't think we need every emotion thrown at us in such an amplified fashion.
Seems to me he was specifically talking about Wii Music and was giving us an idea about how it works.
As someone doesn't know anything about it that hasn't been on a TV advert (ie not much) I found it rather interesting. I'm not exactly going to rush out and buy it but it's interesting to know there is some depth there.
So you believing in creation, evolution, paganism, the church of Scientology, the Flying Spaghetti monster or whatever doesn't mean you have to be able to explain someone else' concepts, misconceptions, or general ideology nor would you have to involve yourself with some deep knowledge of science either.
Shooting people in the head means they won't get cancer!
I'm not sure what your experience is but I've met and known quite a few people with Downs Syndrome who seemed happy. Certainly as happy as the rest of us at any rate.
It seems rather ridiculous to assume their lives aren't worth living. What next, deciding a childs life isn't going to be worth it because they aren't as sexy as Hugh Jackman or hung like Ron Jeremy?
Slashdot Mirror
You try, it works, you sell, one year later it fails, and your program crashes, and the customer thinks this is normal.
There, fixed that for you.
Really?
Personally I think there's a huge difference between handing out money to corporations responsible to their shareholders and an the BBC who's responsibility is to fulfill a charter established by the people who are stumping up the cash (albeit via government).
"Why didn't they invest more of the effects budget on the three breasted woman?"
Do you mean immediately? I'm not sure you should expect to, most companies would implement the cap at a position which is sufficient to avoid annoying 99% of their existing customers, ie it won't reduce their immediate costs much at all, rather it will give them a control mechanism going forward.
That said caps don't bring much to consumers if there is just a one-size fits all cap. For there to be any consumer benefit a set of tiered caps need to be offered so the customer can choose a price point that meets their needs and not pay for what they don't use.
Some clueless person says this every time there is a story on credit cards.
Visa/MC do not end up paying. Merchants on the receiving end of fraudulent transactions do. Visa/MC may even profit from it as the fees they charge merchants for chargebacks can be quite steep.
I don't know about that, but it certainly sounds like a recipe for disaster.
When Obama turns into an evil Oba-man we'll know who to blame.
I think that's a faulty assumption. I'll agree that a stronger economy will lead to faster technological development but I don't think that development is likely to be directed towards environmental efficiency without additional motivation (such as this measure). It's just not something that the economy as a whole is geared towards addressing.
If there were a genuine contention for resources then you'd have a point but the only one I can see is largely theoretical.
Ie I don't see how doing this in fact has a detrimental effect on other things that may also be done (or are also being done).
Choosing "those actions with maximum the benefit at minimal cost" is a reasonable idea but if you just sit on your hands while debating what is the "best" thing to do then you'll never get anything done out of fear that there might be something else you should be doing.
Certainly decisions should be evidence based but at the end of the day you need to choose a set of things look like they'll have a reasonable effect and get moving on them.
The consumption aspect of the problem is millions of people using lots of little bits of energy. The only way to make an impact on the consumption aspect of the problem is to reduce all those individual little bits.
The consumption part of the problem is inherently a cumulative effect and any inroads into it will necessarily involve many small boulders and lots of ants. There is no bulldozer for consumption.
I'm not so sure it's bullshit.
If the idea is ultimately stop an increase in power usage due to TVs then it makes a fair bit of sense.
In that case you want the average power consumption on new TVs to be no more than the average consumption on old TVs.
Comparing averages between LCD and CRT screens might not be a perfect metric for that but it is probably good enough.
Jessica Simpson was funnier.
Not to mention better in shorty shorts.
That is slightly modified for Sony and the PS3 as it pretty much won them the format war for HD video.
I don't know how you'd begin to calculate what that is/will be "worth" to them. Plus there are additional revenue streams these days (ie online purchases) that don't effect attach rate but could bring a lot of profit.
That said I think the Nintendo model makes a lot more sense.
Indeed, the cause and effect is (largely) the other way round. A drop (or an expected drop) in a company's ability to make money in the future causes it's stock price to decrease.
Value is an appraisal and reasonably includes future expectations so the company has lost value by any reasonable meaning of the word.
In case any other potential mods are reading my description of Home as a "bundle of excitement" was intended to be sarcastic.
Perhaps someone misread my post as saying "bundle of excrement".
At their house I imagine. I guess the first set of papers came as a bit of a surprise so they weren't in hiding at that time.
Where the people are probably doesn't matter so much any more. Now the lien has been served the creditors can presumably move forwards and take possession of the house without needing any cooperation.
I guess if the debt extends past the value of the house then there may be further need to pursue them individually but otherwise it's probably done and dusted.
That said the last article I read said that the couple are back at the house now they have nothing to hide from so no doubt there will be some eviction shenanigans.
You have to feel sorry for them to some extent, losing your house in you 60s can't be a barrel of laughs but hiding away isn't the way to deal with it.
No doubt all the gamers are too busy being enthralled by the bundle of excitement that called "Home".
Default judgement has already happened in this case, the papers that were eventually "delivered" via Facebook were ones informing them that the default judgement had been rendered against them.
I suppose they could appeal this but that would probably require actually turning up in front of it which doesn't seem to be the way they work.
I think a causal link there is probably a bit of a stretch.
That said it's a convenient distraction from the backlash Conroy has been facing and it must be hard for a lot of Australian internet users to decide who they dislike more, Conroy or Telstra.
I it too!
However, I think it is perhaps over-wrought in general. any 'positive' feelings equally overblown. The Doctor (and companion) seem to transition from maudlin to flippant within a fraction of a second.
For lack of a better term springing to mind the show seems bi-polar. Week in week out I find that a bit tiring to watch.
I wouldn't mind the next incarnation of The Doctor being a bit more enigmatic, I don't think we need every emotion thrown at us in such an amplified fashion.
You seem to be the one having a rabid reaction.
Seems to me he was specifically talking about Wii Music and was giving us an idea about how it works.
As someone doesn't know anything about it that hasn't been on a TV advert (ie not much) I found it rather interesting. I'm not exactly going to rush out and buy it but it's interesting to know there is some depth there.
If you find out, make sure you get him to see a doctor, urine isn't supposed to be dark brown.
Three cheers for ignorance!
They? What about you? I'm sure there's plenty you don't comprehend and are missing but don't know about.
Shooting people in the head means they won't get cancer!
I'm not sure what your experience is but I've met and known quite a few people with Downs Syndrome who seemed happy. Certainly as happy as the rest of us at any rate.
It seems rather ridiculous to assume their lives aren't worth living. What next, deciding a childs life isn't going to be worth it because they aren't as sexy as Hugh Jackman or hung like Ron Jeremy?