Solar panel efficiency is nearly good enough to make a lot of applications viable. If they can make the jump they claim from 16% to 20%, that would be huge. Needing 20% less roofspace/panels for the same power, and with the panels themselves cheaper to boot? It could bring the price of rooftop solar into the reach of millions more American households.
New vulnerabilities for IE9 show up pretty much weekly. If you're browsing in the month-long vulnerability window you can get arbitrary code execution happening on your system.
I'm not assuming. The evidence is already out there. Look what happens every time there is a starvation situation. People hoard food, and people die. Thinking that the solution to the impact of climate change will be to handle it differently is wishful thinking, things aren't going to get better, they're going to get worse as we multiply food shortages by water shortages.
Umm... yes. The earth is not literally packed with humans shoulder to shoulder one deep. There isn't, however, enough of pretty much anything to go around any more. The earth has 148,940,000 km^2 to go around if wikipedia is to be believed, so that's.021277 km^2 per person, or 21,277 square meters, or a square 146 meters on a side. Not a lot of space. It gets much worse when you consider only really conventionally usable land, which loses you about 2/3rds of the total. Suddenly things start to look really cramped even if westerners are willing to give up wallowing in their luxury.
So no freedom then? Because free people will act selfishly, and keep more than they need (in case of a rainy day, or perhaps more apropos to this case, a droughty day). People will rightly (in terms of their self interest) turn to hoarding if their assets are threatened by migrants. It's a terrible misfortune, but your choices really are limited to war, oppression, or radical change in human nature.
So we're at a mere 60% of the absolute maximum capacity even now? You realize, right, that at max capacity, one extra person born means one dies. Now think about the mechanism of how that happens. Now think about whether or not that mechanism would be operating even now. Now you're getting it.
These are people who lived in places with water. And that water is going to go away, suddenly, as could happen to literally any source of water other than desalinated ocean.
The history of the human race has involved a great deal of migration. Unfortunately, the earth is now full, and there is no place to migrate to anymore which is not already oversubscribed. Migration from now on means war.
You just need to weigh the pros and cons for yourself.
Or if you're looking for the best way to get paid, I'd say:
Create a little website to sell your application, at a license price 2x what you'd like to get paid. Suggest that you could either buy a license to said software, or develop it yourself for X (and get the source code and full control as a bonus), or continue maintenance effort without software support, which you can document taking Y yearly man-hours at cost Z (presumably in the ballpark of at least 1/2 X, otherwise with a more than 2 year recoup you are not going to win this sale).
Given a rational choice between 3 options, most organizations will choose. And once they've chose, you either know you can get paid for one of the 2 earlier choices, or you know that the organization would prefer to continue throwing away money on the manual process.
LV sells ugly bags at high prices. Having a superior counterfeit advertised as LV undermines their marketing efforts because it creates the impression that those nice bags you can buy near the airport are actual LV.
Agreed on all but the dogs who bark at squirrels. Anyone who has spent time interviewing such dogs about their political ideologies will have discovered the truth of that.
I favor taxing of tobacco and alcohol exactly to the extent that their use costs the rest of us money (paying medical bills for cancer caused to self or others, and the victims of drunk driving for example). I'd be perfectly happy to switch that to an insurance model where you were legally obligated to buy alcohol/tobacco insurance before use, though. Either way, it's all about society having some way to recoup the costs being created by those habits, costs which unfortunately aren't accounted for in the base price of producing those items.
Likewise, I favor a progressive tax system, going up to about 100% for billionaires, because it more accurately reflects the cost of those individuals to our society. Fundamentally, every person with that kind of wealth is getting it because they are leveraging an existing inequity in negotiating power, where people with less assets cannot negotiate a fair price for their labor, because they cannot afford to walk away from the negotiation, while the richer person can, resulting in the richer person getting richer via the exploitation of the poorer person.
I would be on board with a pure progressive tax, however. No exemptions, just higher and higher percentages paid on all income (must include all kinds of investment income and capital gains).
Your statement seems to be an affirmation rather than a contradiction of the original claim. SF/PA are considered SV. The home prices are highest in the nation. They have remained that way thanks to holding their value.
Slashdot Mirror
Solar panel efficiency is nearly good enough to make a lot of applications viable. If they can make the jump they claim from 16% to 20%, that would be huge. Needing 20% less roofspace/panels for the same power, and with the panels themselves cheaper to boot? It could bring the price of rooftop solar into the reach of millions more American households.
I install a link expander for my browser.
New vulnerabilities for IE9 show up pretty much weekly. If you're browsing in the month-long vulnerability window you can get arbitrary code execution happening on your system.
You install firefox mobile and an expander?
No, I merely meant to contrast it with when migrations sometimes didn't mean war.
I agree with you completely. I'm only suggesting that smart people be preparing for this outcome.
I'm not assuming. The evidence is already out there. Look what happens every time there is a starvation situation. People hoard food, and people die. Thinking that the solution to the impact of climate change will be to handle it differently is wishful thinking, things aren't going to get better, they're going to get worse as we multiply food shortages by water shortages.
You think 4 football fields is enough. Yikes. That is cramped as hell.
Umm ... yes. The earth is not literally packed with humans shoulder to shoulder one deep. There isn't, however, enough of pretty much anything to go around any more. The earth has 148,940,000 km^2 to go around if wikipedia is to be believed, so that's .021277 km^2 per person, or 21,277 square meters, or a square 146 meters on a side. Not a lot of space. It gets much worse when you consider only really conventionally usable land, which loses you about 2/3rds of the total. Suddenly things start to look really cramped even if westerners are willing to give up wallowing in their luxury.
So no freedom then? Because free people will act selfishly, and keep more than they need (in case of a rainy day, or perhaps more apropos to this case, a droughty day). People will rightly (in terms of their self interest) turn to hoarding if their assets are threatened by migrants. It's a terrible misfortune, but your choices really are limited to war, oppression, or radical change in human nature.
So we're at a mere 60% of the absolute maximum capacity even now? You realize, right, that at max capacity, one extra person born means one dies. Now think about the mechanism of how that happens. Now think about whether or not that mechanism would be operating even now. Now you're getting it.
These are people who lived in places with water. And that water is going to go away, suddenly, as could happen to literally any source of water other than desalinated ocean.
The history of the human race has involved a great deal of migration. Unfortunately, the earth is now full, and there is no place to migrate to anymore which is not already oversubscribed. Migration from now on means war.
You just need to weigh the pros and cons for yourself.
Or if you're looking for the best way to get paid, I'd say:
Create a little website to sell your application, at a license price 2x what you'd like to get paid. Suggest that you could either buy a license to said software, or develop it yourself for X (and get the source code and full control as a bonus), or continue maintenance effort without software support, which you can document taking Y yearly man-hours at cost Z (presumably in the ballpark of at least 1/2 X, otherwise with a more than 2 year recoup you are not going to win this sale).
Given a rational choice between 3 options, most organizations will choose. And once they've chose, you either know you can get paid for one of the 2 earlier choices, or you know that the organization would prefer to continue throwing away money on the manual process.
Indeed. But that wasn't in TFA unfortunately.
LV sells ugly bags at high prices. Having a superior counterfeit advertised as LV undermines their marketing efforts because it creates the impression that those nice bags you can buy near the airport are actual LV.
I'd say their best defense would be to call it a documentary about fake LV bags. It clearly wasn't a comedy, so it works out.
Agreed on all but the dogs who bark at squirrels. Anyone who has spent time interviewing such dogs about their political ideologies will have discovered the truth of that.
This is probably the most important thing you miss if you don't read the article. GoDaddy lost only about 1k domains.
I don't think you understood me, but your conclusion is so crazy it's hard to know exactly where you went off track.
Some things have pretty straightforward costs.
Calling Santa Clara SV is stretching it a bit. Almost none of that is real SV territory, and the part that is, is the most expensive part.
I favor taxing of tobacco and alcohol exactly to the extent that their use costs the rest of us money (paying medical bills for cancer caused to self or others, and the victims of drunk driving for example). I'd be perfectly happy to switch that to an insurance model where you were legally obligated to buy alcohol/tobacco insurance before use, though. Either way, it's all about society having some way to recoup the costs being created by those habits, costs which unfortunately aren't accounted for in the base price of producing those items.
Likewise, I favor a progressive tax system, going up to about 100% for billionaires, because it more accurately reflects the cost of those individuals to our society. Fundamentally, every person with that kind of wealth is getting it because they are leveraging an existing inequity in negotiating power, where people with less assets cannot negotiate a fair price for their labor, because they cannot afford to walk away from the negotiation, while the richer person can, resulting in the richer person getting richer via the exploitation of the poorer person.
I would be on board with a pure progressive tax, however. No exemptions, just higher and higher percentages paid on all income (must include all kinds of investment income and capital gains).
Sadly, all they wound up with was a new form of tyranny of the minority.
By what law?
Your statement seems to be an affirmation rather than a contradiction of the original claim. SF/PA are considered SV. The home prices are highest in the nation. They have remained that way thanks to holding their value.