Yes, to be fair the province did allow some turbines to either be built too close to houses or houses built to close to turbines, I'm not sure the exact order. Apparently that group (which is smaller than this group of scared people) has a legitimate gripe, because they can't sleep because of the constant low, but audible, noise. The lack of sleep is causing other health problems which they are then blaming on the turbines rather than the insomnia. At least, that's the way I understand it.
Once you accept that piracy is theft, then it becomes clear that lowering prices is also theft. After all, look at all the imaginary money that won't be collected on each sale at the lower price. No clearly, it's a much better and profitable idea to increase the price and use that money to pay for anti-theft (used games) measures. You can't trust people, after all, we already know they're thieves (piracy).
Or at least, that's what I figure the pointy-haired managers would say to that. Simply put they don't want to lower prices or have people buying used games. When you consider that the objective is to keep prices high and eliminate used games, what they're doing makes perfect sense. Although I agree that it is foolhardy and likely to bankrupt at least one of the consoles if they go through with the plan.
Do you really want to have your children to have their gaming system with them at all times? How will having a games machine always at their finger tips going to affect their performance in school? If you decide that they're spending too much time paying games, your only option is to delete the games from the phone and then will be able to reinstall them as quickly as you delete them.
Making a phone your child's primary gaming platform may not be a wise idea.
I'm pretty sure that most of the big players in the content industries think control precedes profits. They're predisposed to think so by corporate environments. There's an old saying among business people that businesses are not a democracy. That always struck me as one of the stupidest things you could say to any employee. Essentially, it's "your [expert] opinions don't matter because you work for me". I've met some people who think like these media conglomerates, and I'd be willing to bet that many of these guys are absolutely enraged by the second hand market in addition to unauthorised sharing. They view used [game, CD, record, DVD] sales as theft just like "piracy". They think the people selling these used products are profiting from their work without paying them which is their new definition of theft.
Because many of these executives got to their positions by being petty, controlling and possessive jerks, they are now unable to see the benefit in any other sort of behaviour. So they expect once they have eliminated the used game sales, people will have no choice but to give them tons of money. When they don't get it, they will blame piracy, because it's safe for them to blame every strategic failure on piracy.
Actually, I suspect if Alaska were warmer most of the land would still be terrible for growing crops. That's not considering other factors such as shorter growing seasons and weaker sunlight. I'm roughly familiar with Northern Canada's geography, and I think it would make especially poor crop land, I think it's mostly rocky with at best a poor, thin, top soil. It could, in theory, be turned into prime agricultural soil but it would like be at immense cost and years if not decades of work, it would likely end up being funded by government because it seems doubtful that any private interest would engage in a project of that expense and duration that has such an uncertain payoff.
It's not just areas that too hot to grow crops, it's too hot and too dry, and with unstable weather patterns. Texas just had the worst drought in it's history, as temperatures continue to increase Texas may shift to a similar pattern to the one Australia seems to see: some years they get massive flooding, other years they get virtually no rain. There are areas around the world where they get either drought or flood, and little in between those two extremes. The U.S. midwest is one of the most productive food growing regions in the world, do you really think it's wise to risk that productivity on the chance that other lands might eventually be as good?
You need to think carefully about the question: "How long will it take us to adapt?" As long as we continue to terraform the planet we're adapting to a moving target. That target isn't likely to settle down until decades after we run out of usable fossil fuels*. It can take decades for the temperature to reach it's new equilibrium point after CO2 emissions are released.
* At least at prices where they can remain an option for the general public.
Or perhaps they just disagree with your proposed solution. It's entirely possible for someone to be more concerned with the risks of nuclear than the risks of climate change whether or not that's rational. Whenever I see someone say that "nuclear has to be part of the answer", the message to me is that it's more about political ideology than solutions. I looks to me like you are trying to shoehorn your opinions on nuclear nuclear as a precondition on participating in the discussion.
Nuclear is quite likely going to have to be part of the solution, but when you push too hard people don't want to listen.
There are few positive to rapid climate change. Nature likes equilibrium and well adapted species. Shake everything up and you tend to get massive die offs. Take for example the last retreat of the glaciers, it killed off most of the megafauna in North America leaving us with deer and bison. The lack of domesticatable land mammals is part of the reason that Native American civilization was destroyed by Europeans.
Most of the world is fed by crops that evolved in the fertile crescent (an area in the middle east). If we change the climate sufficiently so that those few crops no longer thrive the world faces famine on a scale we've never seen. The world produce around 700 million tons of wheat, 700 million tons of rice and about 800 million tons of corn. Those three crops provide the majority of the world's calories. In contrast the world produces about 200 million tons of meat and 100 million tons of fish. Everything else is pretty much irrelevant. On a human time scale there are no real advantages to climate change. Fewer people might freeze, but more people are killed by heat stroke so that's a net negative. Some frozen land becomes poor quality arable land, however more good quality arable land becomes unusably drought stricken, that a net negative. Maybe a few centuries from now the total arable land area might go up, but in the short term we're trading good land for bad.
When the scientists evaluate the changes, they are are all short term negative and debatable on the extremely long term. It seem clear that slowing the rate of change is a net benefit regardless of the eventual outcome. If we slow the changes everyone has more time to adapt, and that's clearly a good thing.
Both can be true. Records snowfalls are more likely because of increased temperatures that are still below freezing. This years record low snowfall is at least partially because of ice loss in the arctic. We got much warmer temperatures than normal because the warmer water disrupted wind patterns of the arctic that normally would blow warm air over the North Eastern part of North America towards Western Europe.
Further study is necessary to determine how frequently we can expect to see similar conditions.
This isn't proof of global warming, it's the effects of global warming. The proof is in the global temperature records. Even the skeptical scientists hired by the Koch brothers have affirmed that global warming is real and occurring. Global warming is well established theory with a lot of supporting evidence that makes it hard to falsify. There are plenty of falsifiable parts. For example if you could prove that carbon dioxide did not have an insulating effect you could disprove global warming. Of course, you won't be able to do that because there are easily reproducible experiments that show that it does.
Resorting to personal attacks like "it's religion" just makes you look bitter and foolish. Especially since many of the people who deny global warming do so for religious reasons. Like the congressman who claimed Global Warming couldn't be real because God promised not to flood the world again.
Warmer temperatures mean more water in the air and that means more precipitation. If the starting average temperature is sufficiently cold that means more snow, not less. There is a point where the increase in snow will be outweighed by the conversion of snow to rain, but not every place will hit that point or hit it at the same time. And even those places that have decreased their average snowfall will be more likely to having record snowfall events when it does snow due to the increased moisture in the air.
I looked at the article you linked, it mentions no defense cuts at all, and specifically mentions that Ryan is being criticized because he refuses to cut defense spending. As far as I understand Obama's proposed cutting the defense budget by 1% and you're calling that "draconian" when Ryan is calling to cut close to 100% out of three different social programs. Does that seem odd to you?
Well it's not a perfect plan
Indeed. It's rare that anyone champions stealing from the poor and giving to the rich, but that seems to be where today's Republicans are.
You don't make political decisions based on the long term predictions, you make them based on the cost-benefit analysis. Almost all of the economists who have studied the matter, predict that taking action to reduce CO2 emissions now will save a few trillion dollars in expenses for the U.S. I'm not sure what the world wide savings would be.
However, the basic truth that if the average temperature increases we'll see more hot days should only be doubted by the insane. The exact increase in frequency might be different, but it's probably reasonable accurate. It's based on an analysis of temperature distribution and projected onto the warming trend caused by AGW. If the warming trend continues, there would have to be a fundamental change in the amount of variability in weather patterns to make the prediction wrong.
Seriously, do you understand anything that you read? The article specifically says the Republicans are proposing to immediately cut the top tax rate by 10% as well. It mentions the "other side" has a proposal to cut $4 trillion. So it's exactly the same size as what the other side is bringing to the table, except the Republicans refuse to cut a single cent from defence and want to effectively end Medicaire, Medicaid, and Social Security so they can give that money to America's richest people.
And the article perfectly shows what I was talking about, these so-called conservatives don't want a surplus, they want to lower taxes at any cost, and if the plan mentioned in the article (cutting the top tax rate by 10%) goes through the tax cuts would overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans. It looks like modern conservatives will always plan to cut taxes enough to make sure that the government is in deficit so that they can justify further cuts to social programs which will then be used to justify further tax cuts in a never-ending vicious cycle.
Actually, I don't think the Republican part wants fiscal conservatives, they want people who cut government spending and/or cut taxes. True fiscal conservatives would want to balance the budget, generate a surplus and pay down the debt. As far as I can see modern conservatives would cut taxes immediately and maintain a permanent deficit position. That's what the Canadian Conservative party did as soon as it got into power, it cut taxes twice which generated. For instance we have a federal deficit of $30 billion dollars, and at least $24 billion of that deficit comes from tax cuts. A combination of $14.5 billion annually from corporate income tax cuts and at least $10 annually from a cut to the Goods and Services Tax. Some of the rest of the deficit comes from additional debt accumulated because of the already reduced revenue. In contrast, the Canadian Liberal party, was running $10-$15 billion yearly surpluses and paying down the debt.
Modern conservatives seem to thing "fiscally conservative" means anti-tax. I think it means paying your bills and planning for the future, but maybe that's just me.
That's called "push-polling", it's not a real poll. The whole point is to trick voters into believing outrageous claims because they supposedly comes from an independent source. However, it's really Candidate Z who's behind the fake poll. It's just one more trick in the "How To Corrupt Democracy Handbook".
Actually, I don't think a zero tax rate wouldn't be that much of an advantage. Companies routinely incorporate parts of their business in low tax countries and then maintain a token presence for the sole purpose of filtering as much revenue through that low tax country.
If you were to lower the corporate tax rate to 0%, it would be very tempting for a company to save 25% on labour costs in China (or elsewhere) and pay 0% taxes by funnelling the revenue through an American company. You'd effectively deprive China of some tax revenue while eliminating American corporate tax revenues. If I were the CEO of an American company that currently employs Chinese workers, I'd probably keep the money in a reserve fund. The U.S. economy isn't booming so it probably doesn't make any sense to increase production, and companies that outsource to China often don't pay dividends. Under no circumstances would your plan incite me to fire my cheap Chinese employees and hire expensive American workers. That just doesn't make economic sense.
You theorem seems solid, there's a related phenomenon called Dutch disease that occurs when natural resource exploitation drives the currency value higher.
Except the way most people define the Christian God, he not only can do so, he knows exactly how to please everyone, all the time. He's supposedly omnipotent and omniscient. Therefore, if that God exists, he must have chosen not to please everyone all time, so clearly the atheist is correct: If that God exists, then he is clearly fucking with at least 0.1% of the population*. The question is whether the 0.1% are the butt of the joke, or the audience.
* Actually, that number is probably at least 5%, 95% is about the maximum level of belief in a God that can be found in a country that doesn't publicly execute atheists. By contrast, in Sweden 59% of people reported believing that God doesn't exist and it's only the third most atheistic country in Europe.
My point is that there are several situations where you could easily claim to be "standing your ground" when you were not in fact doing so. If there are no witnesses who is going to contest the contention that the dead man attacked the defendant. To further make things murky, as I understand it, Florida's "stand your ground" laws applies to public spaces and makes it legal to use lethal force in response to a threat.
The point is that the law has loopholes large enough to drive a tank through. This law re-minds me of the early seasons of South Park where the hunters would yell "It's coming right at me" before shooting their prey. Get it? The law makes it easier to get away with murder in some situations by claiming it's self-defence.
As I understand it, the "stand your ground" law makes it legal to use lethal force if someone feels threatened even on public property. That is a glaringly obvious loophole that will be used to justify murder. You have to be blind or stupid not see how this will be abused.
To spell it out to you, the law appears to make it easy to claim that murder is self-defence. All the defence would have to do is convince at least one juror that the defendant felt threatened by his victim and he would walk free because he's not "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". Of course, before it reaches the court room you'd have to convince the police that they need to arrest someone who appears to be exercising their legal rights and then convince the prosecutor that he has a real chance of winning the case.
Last time I checked Zimmerman had not been arrested or charged with anything. The AC has a point because at least in Florida, murder is legal. Its not just a local police department, it's the entire "Stand your ground" law which makes it legal to murder anyone who's scary.
Don't forget an import aspect for stupid managers, reducing head count and outsourcing can improve ROI or ROE numbers. When you divide revenues by investment (or employees), outsourcing is good by definition.
So in other words, if you use a different definition and a different context for "fungible" than the one everyone else is using, then oil is not fungible?
Is that point worthy of the belaboured treatment you're giving it?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, to be fair the province did allow some turbines to either be built too close to houses or houses built to close to turbines, I'm not sure the exact order. Apparently that group (which is smaller than this group of scared people) has a legitimate gripe, because they can't sleep because of the constant low, but audible, noise. The lack of sleep is causing other health problems which they are then blaming on the turbines rather than the insomnia. At least, that's the way I understand it.
I'm pretty sure they consider "theft" to be anything that doesn't put money in their pockets.
I can't disagree.
Once you accept that piracy is theft, then it becomes clear that lowering prices is also theft. After all, look at all the imaginary money that won't be collected on each sale at the lower price. No clearly, it's a much better and profitable idea to increase the price and use that money to pay for anti-theft (used games) measures. You can't trust people, after all, we already know they're thieves (piracy).
Or at least, that's what I figure the pointy-haired managers would say to that. Simply put they don't want to lower prices or have people buying used games. When you consider that the objective is to keep prices high and eliminate used games, what they're doing makes perfect sense. Although I agree that it is foolhardy and likely to bankrupt at least one of the consoles if they go through with the plan.
Do you really want to have your children to have their gaming system with them at all times?
How will having a games machine always at their finger tips going to affect their performance in school?
If you decide that they're spending too much time paying games, your only option is to delete the games from the phone and then will be able to reinstall them as quickly as you delete them.
Making a phone your child's primary gaming platform may not be a wise idea.
I'm pretty sure that most of the big players in the content industries think control precedes profits. They're predisposed to think so by corporate environments. There's an old saying among business people that businesses are not a democracy. That always struck me as one of the stupidest things you could say to any employee. Essentially, it's "your [expert] opinions don't matter because you work for me". I've met some people who think like these media conglomerates, and I'd be willing to bet that many of these guys are absolutely enraged by the second hand market in addition to unauthorised sharing. They view used [game, CD, record, DVD] sales as theft just like "piracy". They think the people selling these used products are profiting from their work without paying them which is their new definition of theft.
Because many of these executives got to their positions by being petty, controlling and possessive jerks, they are now unable to see the benefit in any other sort of behaviour. So they expect once they have eliminated the used game sales, people will have no choice but to give them tons of money. When they don't get it, they will blame piracy, because it's safe for them to blame every strategic failure on piracy.
Actually, I suspect if Alaska were warmer most of the land would still be terrible for growing crops. That's not considering other factors such as shorter growing seasons and weaker sunlight. I'm roughly familiar with Northern Canada's geography, and I think it would make especially poor crop land, I think it's mostly rocky with at best a poor, thin, top soil. It could, in theory, be turned into prime agricultural soil but it would like be at immense cost and years if not decades of work, it would likely end up being funded by government because it seems doubtful that any private interest would engage in a project of that expense and duration that has such an uncertain payoff.
It's not just areas that too hot to grow crops, it's too hot and too dry, and with unstable weather patterns. Texas just had the worst drought in it's history, as temperatures continue to increase Texas may shift to a similar pattern to the one Australia seems to see: some years they get massive flooding, other years they get virtually no rain. There are areas around the world where they get either drought or flood, and little in between those two extremes. The U.S. midwest is one of the most productive food growing regions in the world, do you really think it's wise to risk that productivity on the chance that other lands might eventually be as good?
You need to think carefully about the question: "How long will it take us to adapt?" As long as we continue to terraform the planet we're adapting to a moving target. That target isn't likely to settle down until decades after we run out of usable fossil fuels*. It can take decades for the temperature to reach it's new equilibrium point after CO2 emissions are released.
* At least at prices where they can remain an option for the general public.
Or perhaps they just disagree with your proposed solution. It's entirely possible for someone to be more concerned with the risks of nuclear than the risks of climate change whether or not that's rational. Whenever I see someone say that "nuclear has to be part of the answer", the message to me is that it's more about political ideology than solutions. I looks to me like you are trying to shoehorn your opinions on nuclear nuclear as a precondition on participating in the discussion.
Nuclear is quite likely going to have to be part of the solution, but when you push too hard people don't want to listen.
There are few positive to rapid climate change. Nature likes equilibrium and well adapted species. Shake everything up and you tend to get massive die offs. Take for example the last retreat of the glaciers, it killed off most of the megafauna in North America leaving us with deer and bison. The lack of domesticatable land mammals is part of the reason that Native American civilization was destroyed by Europeans.
Most of the world is fed by crops that evolved in the fertile crescent (an area in the middle east). If we change the climate sufficiently so that those few crops no longer thrive the world faces famine on a scale we've never seen. The world produce around 700 million tons of wheat, 700 million tons of rice and about 800 million tons of corn. Those three crops provide the majority of the world's calories. In contrast the world produces about 200 million tons of meat and 100 million tons of fish. Everything else is pretty much irrelevant. On a human time scale there are no real advantages to climate change. Fewer people might freeze, but more people are killed by heat stroke so that's a net negative. Some frozen land becomes poor quality arable land, however more good quality arable land becomes unusably drought stricken, that a net negative. Maybe a few centuries from now the total arable land area might go up, but in the short term we're trading good land for bad.
When the scientists evaluate the changes, they are are all short term negative and debatable on the extremely long term. It seem clear that slowing the rate of change is a net benefit regardless of the eventual outcome. If we slow the changes everyone has more time to adapt, and that's clearly a good thing.
Both can be true. Records snowfalls are more likely because of increased temperatures that are still below freezing. This years record low snowfall is at least partially because of ice loss in the arctic. We got much warmer temperatures than normal because the warmer water disrupted wind patterns of the arctic that normally would blow warm air over the North Eastern part of North America towards Western Europe.
Further study is necessary to determine how frequently we can expect to see similar conditions.
This isn't proof of global warming, it's the effects of global warming. The proof is in the global temperature records. Even the skeptical scientists hired by the Koch brothers have affirmed that global warming is real and occurring. Global warming is well established theory with a lot of supporting evidence that makes it hard to falsify. There are plenty of falsifiable parts. For example if you could prove that carbon dioxide did not have an insulating effect you could disprove global warming. Of course, you won't be able to do that because there are easily reproducible experiments that show that it does.
Resorting to personal attacks like "it's religion" just makes you look bitter and foolish. Especially since many of the people who deny global warming do so for religious reasons. Like the congressman who claimed Global Warming couldn't be real because God promised not to flood the world again.
Warmer temperatures mean more water in the air and that means more precipitation. If the starting average temperature is sufficiently cold that means more snow, not less. There is a point where the increase in snow will be outweighed by the conversion of snow to rain, but not every place will hit that point or hit it at the same time. And even those places that have decreased their average snowfall will be more likely to having record snowfall events when it does snow due to the increased moisture in the air.
I looked at the article you linked, it mentions no defense cuts at all, and specifically mentions that Ryan is being criticized because he refuses to cut defense spending. As far as I understand Obama's proposed cutting the defense budget by 1% and you're calling that "draconian" when Ryan is calling to cut close to 100% out of three different social programs. Does that seem odd to you?
Well it's not a perfect plan
Indeed. It's rare that anyone champions stealing from the poor and giving to the rich, but that seems to be where today's Republicans are.
You don't make political decisions based on the long term predictions, you make them based on the cost-benefit analysis. Almost all of the economists who have studied the matter, predict that taking action to reduce CO2 emissions now will save a few trillion dollars in expenses for the U.S. I'm not sure what the world wide savings would be.
However, the basic truth that if the average temperature increases we'll see more hot days should only be doubted by the insane. The exact increase in frequency might be different, but it's probably reasonable accurate. It's based on an analysis of temperature distribution and projected onto the warming trend caused by AGW. If the warming trend continues, there would have to be a fundamental change in the amount of variability in weather patterns to make the prediction wrong.
Seriously, do you understand anything that you read? The article specifically says the Republicans are proposing to immediately cut the top tax rate by 10% as well. It mentions the "other side" has a proposal to cut $4 trillion. So it's exactly the same size as what the other side is bringing to the table, except the Republicans refuse to cut a single cent from defence and want to effectively end Medicaire, Medicaid, and Social Security so they can give that money to America's richest people.
And the article perfectly shows what I was talking about, these so-called conservatives don't want a surplus, they want to lower taxes at any cost, and if the plan mentioned in the article (cutting the top tax rate by 10%) goes through the tax cuts would overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans. It looks like modern conservatives will always plan to cut taxes enough to make sure that the government is in deficit so that they can justify further cuts to social programs which will then be used to justify further tax cuts in a never-ending vicious cycle.
Actually, I don't think the Republican part wants fiscal conservatives, they want people who cut government spending and/or cut taxes. True fiscal conservatives would want to balance the budget, generate a surplus and pay down the debt. As far as I can see modern conservatives would cut taxes immediately and maintain a permanent deficit position. That's what the Canadian Conservative party did as soon as it got into power, it cut taxes twice which generated. For instance we have a federal deficit of $30 billion dollars, and at least $24 billion of that deficit comes from tax cuts. A combination of $14.5 billion annually from corporate income tax cuts and at least $10 annually from a cut to the Goods and Services Tax. Some of the rest of the deficit comes from additional debt accumulated because of the already reduced revenue. In contrast, the Canadian Liberal party, was running $10-$15 billion yearly surpluses and paying down the debt.
Modern conservatives seem to thing "fiscally conservative" means anti-tax. I think it means paying your bills and planning for the future, but maybe that's just me.
That's called "push-polling", it's not a real poll. The whole point is to trick voters into believing outrageous claims because they supposedly comes from an independent source. However, it's really Candidate Z who's behind the fake poll. It's just one more trick in the "How To Corrupt Democracy Handbook".
Actually, I don't think a zero tax rate wouldn't be that much of an advantage. Companies routinely incorporate parts of their business in low tax countries and then maintain a token presence for the sole purpose of filtering as much revenue through that low tax country.
If you were to lower the corporate tax rate to 0%, it would be very tempting for a company to save 25% on labour costs in China (or elsewhere) and pay 0% taxes by funnelling the revenue through an American company. You'd effectively deprive China of some tax revenue while eliminating American corporate tax revenues. If I were the CEO of an American company that currently employs Chinese workers, I'd probably keep the money in a reserve fund. The U.S. economy isn't booming so it probably doesn't make any sense to increase production, and companies that outsource to China often don't pay dividends. Under no circumstances would your plan incite me to fire my cheap Chinese employees and hire expensive American workers. That just doesn't make economic sense.
You theorem seems solid, there's a related phenomenon called Dutch disease that occurs when natural resource exploitation drives the currency value higher.
Except the way most people define the Christian God, he not only can do so, he knows exactly how to please everyone, all the time. He's supposedly omnipotent and omniscient. Therefore, if that God exists, he must have chosen not to please everyone all time, so clearly the atheist is correct: If that God exists, then he is clearly fucking with at least 0.1% of the population*. The question is whether the 0.1% are the butt of the joke, or the audience.
* Actually, that number is probably at least 5%, 95% is about the maximum level of belief in a God that can be found in a country that doesn't publicly execute atheists. By contrast, in Sweden 59% of people reported believing that God doesn't exist and it's only the third most atheistic country in Europe.
My point is that there are several situations where you could easily claim to be "standing your ground" when you were not in fact doing so. If there are no witnesses who is going to contest the contention that the dead man attacked the defendant. To further make things murky, as I understand it, Florida's "stand your ground" laws applies to public spaces and makes it legal to use lethal force in response to a threat.
The point is that the law has loopholes large enough to drive a tank through. This law re-minds me of the early seasons of South Park where the hunters would yell "It's coming right at me" before shooting their prey. Get it? The law makes it easier to get away with murder in some situations by claiming it's self-defence.
Idiot. What prevents a murderer from claiming he was acting in self-defence? What did you expect criminals to always tell the truth?
As I understand it, the "stand your ground" law makes it legal to use lethal force if someone feels threatened even on public property. That is a glaringly obvious loophole that will be used to justify murder. You have to be blind or stupid not see how this will be abused.
To spell it out to you, the law appears to make it easy to claim that murder is self-defence. All the defence would have to do is convince at least one juror that the defendant felt threatened by his victim and he would walk free because he's not "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". Of course, before it reaches the court room you'd have to convince the police that they need to arrest someone who appears to be exercising their legal rights and then convince the prosecutor that he has a real chance of winning the case.
Last time I checked Zimmerman had not been arrested or charged with anything. The AC has a point because at least in Florida, murder is legal. Its not just a local police department, it's the entire "Stand your ground" law which makes it legal to murder anyone who's scary.
The projects are fine, Blackboard bought two Moodle hosting and support companies and hired a developer from Sakal.
Don't forget an import aspect for stupid managers, reducing head count and outsourcing can improve ROI or ROE numbers. When you divide revenues by investment (or employees), outsourcing is good by definition.
So in other words, if you use a different definition and a different context for "fungible" than the one everyone else is using, then oil is not fungible?
Is that point worthy of the belaboured treatment you're giving it?