They never said back to basics with the Phoenix project, they said user oriented browser (Rather than the developer festival kitchen sink that was the suite). Dumping xpfe for what became the xul toolkit meant that the first versions were also pretty basic.
I have all the new comment stuff turned off and I definitely see the effect some of the time (there do seem to be certain views or whatever that ignore it).
The events described are unfortunate, but a song called "Ironic" that doesn't contain any actual irony does end up being ironic. I suppose it could simultaneously be unfortunate.
Of course, the reason these discussions never work very well is that people assume that a person with enough vocal skill and charisma to be somewhat compelling would never approach popular music as a job.
If you flip on the preferences to the equivalent of "use the old stuff", the changes aren't that noticeable (but maybe you liked the middle redesign more than this one or don't like to stay logged in).
The fun thing is that the Air Force really did have a program to keep track of unidentified flying objects (they wanted to know about it if anyone got a good look at a secret plane).
When you give $1 to charity, you get a tax benefit of less than $1.
It is probably possible to establish a foundation and then pay yourself to run it (and maybe some other people you like), but even that only avoids taxes on the money that stays inside the foundation.
I've looked at it a couple times since my previous comment, at the moment it is showing a blaring crescent Earth, with a bunch of (what looks like) noise in the darker areas.
My first reply in this thread was to someone that you thought 'screwed the argument up' (my post wasn't about the mechanics of solar at all, just about the amount of sun striking the earth being massively larger than the power requirements of humanity).
Then you replied that cities and factories can't power themselves with solar from within their footprint, and I said "so what" and added a remark about solar being interesting if it gets a lot cheaper ("the hope for it is that costs reach the point where people install it because it quickly saves them money").
Then we went back and forth over your concerns with EROI, with me asserting that your tertiary concerns weren't a big deal. I do think an upper estimate on energy costs is easy, just take the retail price of a good and divide it by the extraction cost of the cheapest energy. For the most part, people won't discard energy to give away goods, and the retail price will reflect the majority of the labor invested in the good (the people doing that labor will generally be doing it for a wage that covers their food and energy expenditures, and their wage will likely account for the value that their education brings to their job).
I think the root of the problem is that you are approaching me as if I am an ardent solar advocate, whereas I mostly don't like discussions where people say stupid things like
If you do the math, even by covering 100% of the world's surface (including the oceans) with solar collectors, you couldn't produce enough energy to keep the planet running.
.
I'm kind of irritated about the shifting around thing, I made a throwaway comment that you chose to read very broadly, so now that I try to explain the damn comment you say that I am wandering and pretending, even though it is obvious from the comment that I was talking about a scenario that might happen (remember""the hope for it is that costs reach the point"), not something that is absolutely in the future. And you even want me to put hard numbers on it.
No, no problem. I'm saying if the EROI is sufficiently high you get more energy out than you put in, and the technology can provide you energy, so it is viable (without consideration to dollar cost), and also, if you have a choice between one projected EROI and another, it will more often be the case that the higher one is a better investment.
As far as accurately calculating EROI, all I did was assert that if I can use an envelope to estimate that a solar panel will quickly (for some easy definition of quickly, say 5 years) save me money over the electric company, it is very unlikely that the EROI on that panel is negative (and if an envelope is too hand-wavy, the experience of a neighbor).
It might not solve the energy problem, but if it is saving people money, they won't care (and in the narrow scenario I outline, where some number of panels obviously save people money and there are no huge distortions, the EROI would need to be pretty good, because the retail cost would have to be quite low, which puts a limit on the energy invested).
I'm not sure what you are getting at, sure, people need to eat food, but the reason EROI is interesting is that it shows that a technology is viable, and given two relatively comparable technologies, it might help pick the better investment.
(The food consumption inputs of the people that taught the kid are going to be so small when you distribute them over all the cargo and ships and kids that you end up with an exercise in completeness, not interesting information.)
So the study doesn't make the soda look very good, but the authors note that they didn't do enough tests to generalize the results (they only used 1 lab and gathered all the samples in LA).
Yeah, sure, there are lots of expenses. I just think it might be interesting if people knew where the money ended up going, and I have trouble reconciling the cost (of course I realize that I do not have much perspective).
It is probably worth pointing out that he adds detail to the 3 days, the room bill was for 35 hours, which seems safe to call 2 days, so apparently it was $7500 a day.
Slashdot Mirror
They never said back to basics with the Phoenix project, they said user oriented browser (Rather than the developer festival kitchen sink that was the suite). Dumping xpfe for what became the xul toolkit meant that the first versions were also pretty basic.
The per hour makes the information sensible, I don't claim to know if it is the appropriate unit or not.
That one guy looks like he is enjoying it.
I have all the new comment stuff turned off and I definitely see the effect some of the time (there do seem to be certain views or whatever that ignore it).
The events described are unfortunate, but a song called "Ironic" that doesn't contain any actual irony does end up being ironic. I suppose it could simultaneously be unfortunate.
Of course, the reason these discussions never work very well is that people assume that a person with enough vocal skill and charisma to be somewhat compelling would never approach popular music as a job.
http://slashdot.org/my/comments has the moderation modifiers.
On the other hand, there is some value in actually fooling people.
If you flip on the preferences to the equivalent of "use the old stuff", the changes aren't that noticeable (but maybe you liked the middle redesign more than this one or don't like to stay logged in).
If she doesn't trust companies to give her what she paid for, what does she trust for backups?
The thing about that song is that it is ironic.
The fun thing is that the Air Force really did have a program to keep track of unidentified flying objects (they wanted to know about it if anyone got a good look at a secret plane).
Yeah, that's what I use.
It isn't so much that it is complicated, it is that it is an extra step or two, and they don't care.
I can convince my family to enable do not track, no way am I going to try to walk them through cookie white listing.
I would chalk it up to humans being not great at working together in groups, not to unions.
Lots of things that unions did and do are pretty nice, the bless the folks with a card and make-work stuff is pretty crappy.
All of us? What about the people independent of Samsung that researched it further and provided some evidence that it wasn't true?
My initial reaction was more along the lines of "That sounds unlikely" than "Burn them!".
When you give $1 to charity, you get a tax benefit of less than $1.
It is probably possible to establish a foundation and then pay yourself to run it (and maybe some other people you like), but even that only avoids taxes on the money that stays inside the foundation.
It can't be that involuntary.
(and if it is, it seems more likely that some third party is the one actually using force against you, not Microsoft)
I've looked at it a couple times since my previous comment, at the moment it is showing a blaring crescent Earth, with a bunch of (what looks like) noise in the darker areas.
Dish Network has a camera on one of their satellites, and of course they have a channel showing what the camera sees.
My first reply in this thread was to someone that you thought 'screwed the argument up' (my post wasn't about the mechanics of solar at all, just about the amount of sun striking the earth being massively larger than the power requirements of humanity).
Then you replied that cities and factories can't power themselves with solar from within their footprint, and I said "so what" and added a remark about solar being interesting if it gets a lot cheaper ("the hope for it is that costs reach the point where people install it because it quickly saves them money").
Then we went back and forth over your concerns with EROI, with me asserting that your tertiary concerns weren't a big deal. I do think an upper estimate on energy costs is easy, just take the retail price of a good and divide it by the extraction cost of the cheapest energy. For the most part, people won't discard energy to give away goods, and the retail price will reflect the majority of the labor invested in the good (the people doing that labor will generally be doing it for a wage that covers their food and energy expenditures, and their wage will likely account for the value that their education brings to their job).
I think the root of the problem is that you are approaching me as if I am an ardent solar advocate, whereas I mostly don't like discussions where people say stupid things like
If you do the math, even by covering 100% of the world's surface (including the oceans) with solar collectors, you couldn't produce enough energy to keep the planet running.
.
I'm kind of irritated about the shifting around thing, I made a throwaway comment that you chose to read very broadly, so now that I try to explain the damn comment you say that I am wandering and pretending, even though it is obvious from the comment that I was talking about a scenario that might happen (remember""the hope for it is that costs reach the point"), not something that is absolutely in the future. And you even want me to put hard numbers on it.
No, no problem. I'm saying if the EROI is sufficiently high you get more energy out than you put in, and the technology can provide you energy, so it is viable (without consideration to dollar cost), and also, if you have a choice between one projected EROI and another, it will more often be the case that the higher one is a better investment.
As far as accurately calculating EROI, all I did was assert that if I can use an envelope to estimate that a solar panel will quickly (for some easy definition of quickly, say 5 years) save me money over the electric company, it is very unlikely that the EROI on that panel is negative (and if an envelope is too hand-wavy, the experience of a neighbor).
It might not solve the energy problem, but if it is saving people money, they won't care (and in the narrow scenario I outline, where some number of panels obviously save people money and there are no huge distortions, the EROI would need to be pretty good, because the retail cost would have to be quite low, which puts a limit on the energy invested).
I'm not sure what you are getting at, sure, people need to eat food, but the reason EROI is interesting is that it shows that a technology is viable, and given two relatively comparable technologies, it might help pick the better investment.
(The food consumption inputs of the people that taught the kid are going to be so small when you distribute them over all the cargo and ships and kids that you end up with an exercise in completeness, not interesting information.)
You should phrase that as "One study found that soda contained up to 65% fructose, with most samples containing more than the expected 55%".
The blog linked by that blog links the article (along with having nicer analysis):
http://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/10/new-study-hfcs-sweetened-drinks-higher-in-fructose-than-expected/
http://goranlab.com/pdf/Ventura%20Obesity%202010-sugary%20beverages.pdf
So the study doesn't make the soda look very good, but the authors note that they didn't do enough tests to generalize the results (they only used 1 lab and gathered all the samples in LA).
Yeah, sure, there are lots of expenses. I just think it might be interesting if people knew where the money ended up going, and I have trouble reconciling the cost (of course I realize that I do not have much perspective).
It is probably worth pointing out that he adds detail to the 3 days, the room bill was for 35 hours, which seems safe to call 2 days, so apparently it was $7500 a day.
The very best puns annoy the audience with how bad they are.