You are officially disallowed to continue in this discussion due to your use of the term "value added" albeit in a less buzzword(y) manner.
To answer your question, however, none for those of us who already know how to do things with the internet and computers. For those that don't (a rapidly dwindling crowd) or for those that are young and learning, things like this can be quite useful in giving a perspective that most of us take for granted.
It's still stupid and wasteful, in my opinion, but watching kids use these tools to gain information and a love of computers I see at least some small benefit.
All the recommendations say is that members of the House should find suitable external sites to host their video content and try to maintain a modicum of their ethics by trying to find sites that don't have advertisements that will be associated with the video content.
Nowhere do the recommendations suggest members of the House can't speak with their constituents or say what they want to. It only recommends that they use "official" house.gov channels to do so.
So what you're saying is that the growth in our economy from 2002 to 2007 has no bearing on anything because we lost a bunch of money in 2001 due to 9/11?
9/11 didn't send our economy into a tailspin. An ill-planned war, and greed (mortgage "investment") sent our economy into a tailspin. Nothing more, nothing less.
Again, with the "scale" issue. What part of "personal" requires large scale? I specifically said, it should be each home providing a portion of its own power from renewable resources.
I agree, nuclear is the best large scale solution, but it's simply not going to happen any time soon because there are too many people fighting against it.
I have nothing against nuclear, except try getting one built some time. It's a nightmare trying to convince people that it's a safe and viable choice.
As a result, I tend to promote a "self sufficient" mantra because arguing with the anti-nuke crowd is like banging my head against a wall. It's just not worth it.
The point is, on a personal level, efficiency doesn't really need to be that high. You can lose efficiency because you don't have to pipe the power long distances. You can lose efficiency because you can adjust your personal consumption to accommodate it. Most importantly, you can grow your system as your needs change.
Act locally and all that. It doesn't have to solve the world's power needs, it has to solve an individual's power needs. An individual doesn't give a shit about have high efficiency, just having enough to meet their own needs.
Some of us simply don't care. As long as the world gets "better" it's acceptable to make it a part of the economic world too. Despite what some of us may want to believe, the world is run on money. If that's what it takes to make the world run better and cleaner, I'm fine with that.
You are aware that we (the US) supported Papa Doc Duvalier, right? We gave him the power he needed to ruin Haiti for generations.
We (the US) supported Hussein in Iraq until it was no longer convenient.
Those are perhaps the most notorious examples where we "put people in power" who were ruthless to their people, but there are others.
I agree, we have more than enough resources to take care of the population of the world, but you don't really believe anything will change if you go around shooting people do you? All that will do is put other people in power who different in name only. Their actions will continue until something much bigger causes us to stop our pettiness.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; why pick one? The best solution is a combined solution in a small footprint. Each home providing some portion of it's own power through solar, wind, geothermal, or some combination of them all.
Doing it that way won't require any huge infrastructure, it will drastically reduce hydrocarbon dependence, and it will reduce costs drastically on any one of the technologies listed.
It's amazing how many people think Dan Brown is a good writer. Every single one of his books is formulaic and every one that I've read is complete crap with respect to the reality of how things get accomplished.
They're light entertainment, but they're not good books worth reading more than once, if they're worth reading at all.
Except that it was the military who armed the Hunters long before the CIA armed any Predators.
Not that I disagree with your point, the military needs both thinking and unthinking combat "equipment" but trying to deny they have any responsibility for weaponizing "autonomous" combat vehicles is slightly inaccurate.
I might say, as an ex-service member, that invading other sovereign states isn't the same thing as "protecting their country".
I'm not saying I disagree with your point that they knew or should have known what they were getting into, just that some people actually believe protecting their country actually entails protecting their country rather than starting wars in other countries.
I've done that quite often, especially when checking email, so I can verify days and such while reading the email in question. It's not uncommon at all.
I don't really know what you're referencing since what the article is about is installation of Moviemaker, and I saw nothing in the email that referenced calendars.
Now, I don't happen to believe Bill Gates wrote this, but if he did write this email, how he chooses to use calendars should be the least of things you should use as your argument that he looks like an idiot. I''d wager that if the email is in fact legitimately from Gates, it's more likely someone else's story that he relayed to make a point.
How is not knowing the name of the "right" application for the job any different in Linux than it is in Windows? Seriously, why would you think excel had anything to do with spreadsheets? I'll give you Word, but Powerpoint, how about Acrobat? Most application's names don't have much to do with what they actually accomplish.
You learn things in Linux the same way you do in Windows, by asking people who already know. The only reason it seems easy in Windows is because more people know and we've been "brought up" on it.
I'll disagree completely with that statement. As I've expressed many times to friends who were asking for advice, it only takes one small change to make a big difference. I'm not saying it necessarily will make a difference, but something new always has at least a temporary level of excitement that comes with it. I've found that the excitement tends to extend to other aspects of life as well, if you're willing to let it.
You need to let go of your elitist grasp of reality (or lack thereof). Plenty of construction workers and tradesmen can afford any of the things you seem to think require a degree. Jet skis aren't particularly expensive and neither are houses, if you plan your finances in the least bit.
As for everything else, he's not selling his identity, he specifically says he isn't selling his identity. Taxes are easy and everyone expects to pay taxes when they buy large ticket items like he's selling, whether they buy online or not.
The job thing is a bit of a ruse, but it's easier for his employer to at least give the person a trial run for a couple weeks than pull people in for interviews and the like. If it doesn't work out, the employer is not really any worse off than if the guy had simply quit.
Yes suicide is more selfish than brave, but that's not what this guy is doing. Reinvention of yourself does take courage, but not a lot when you have $300K plus in the bank (or even half that) to survive off of while you're figuring it all out.
I posted elsewhere than it's good for him, but he's hardly letting anyone down that depends on him. He's quitting a job and leaving where he lives to "start fresh". He has no kids, apparently no longer has a wife, and quitting a job isn't really the end of the world, so the only thing he's really done is sell all his crap and buy new crap as he sees fit. We all do that, we just don't necessarily do it all at once.
First, he's selling his "stuff" and his "life" is just a catchy way of marketing it, as you said. Not particularly newsworthy, but interesting enough in any case, simply because it is a catchy marketing gimmick.
Second, what he will be as a person after selling his "life" will be a whole new thing. He will be able to start from scratch, essentially anywhere he wants, for at least a year or two. During that time he may learn a new language, meet a new wife, whatever.
Reinventing yourself is easy but it takes a little courage. Unfortunately this guy's courage seems to have come from hitting what he considers rock bottom in his life. Good for him, but sucks that it came at such a price.
Slashdot Mirror
But those don't work worth a damn. The "lotion" in the Kleenex just isn't compatible with my lotion.
You are officially disallowed to continue in this discussion due to your use of the term "value added" albeit in a less buzzword(y) manner.
To answer your question, however, none for those of us who already know how to do things with the internet and computers. For those that don't (a rapidly dwindling crowd) or for those that are young and learning, things like this can be quite useful in giving a perspective that most of us take for granted.
It's still stupid and wasteful, in my opinion, but watching kids use these tools to gain information and a love of computers I see at least some small benefit.
Honestly, where in this link, embedded in the article, say anything about limiting members' capabilities to discuss anything?
http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Capuano_letter.PDF
All the recommendations say is that members of the House should find suitable external sites to host their video content and try to maintain a modicum of their ethics by trying to find sites that don't have advertisements that will be associated with the video content.
Nowhere do the recommendations suggest members of the House can't speak with their constituents or say what they want to. It only recommends that they use "official" house.gov channels to do so.
For reference, it's shudder that you're looking for, not shutter, which is what is put over a window during a storm.
my response was along the lines of a shutter and yelling at him to NEVER...
Does that count as a mondegreen, or just poor command of English?
So what you're saying is that the growth in our economy from 2002 to 2007 has no bearing on anything because we lost a bunch of money in 2001 due to 9/11?
http://genxfinance.com/2007/11/26/a-visual-history-of-the-stock-market-from-1996-2007/
Here's a link that shows by the end of 2001 we had already recovered to the point we were at before 9/11. The short term impact of 9/11 is not insignificant, but it was a long way from "causing" our current economic situation.
You may be able to make the case that it had an indirect affect but even that is going to be difficult to show.
Thank you. I couldn't have said it better myself.
9/11 didn't send our economy into a tailspin. An ill-planned war, and greed (mortgage "investment") sent our economy into a tailspin. Nothing more, nothing less.
Again, with the "scale" issue. What part of "personal" requires large scale? I specifically said, it should be each home providing a portion of its own power from renewable resources.
I agree, nuclear is the best large scale solution, but it's simply not going to happen any time soon because there are too many people fighting against it.
I have nothing against nuclear, except try getting one built some time. It's a nightmare trying to convince people that it's a safe and viable choice.
As a result, I tend to promote a "self sufficient" mantra because arguing with the anti-nuke crowd is like banging my head against a wall. It's just not worth it.
The point is, on a personal level, efficiency doesn't really need to be that high. You can lose efficiency because you don't have to pipe the power long distances. You can lose efficiency because you can adjust your personal consumption to accommodate it. Most importantly, you can grow your system as your needs change.
Act locally and all that. It doesn't have to solve the world's power needs, it has to solve an individual's power needs. An individual doesn't give a shit about have high efficiency, just having enough to meet their own needs.
Some of us simply don't care. As long as the world gets "better" it's acceptable to make it a part of the economic world too. Despite what some of us may want to believe, the world is run on money. If that's what it takes to make the world run better and cleaner, I'm fine with that.
You are aware that we (the US) supported Papa Doc Duvalier, right? We gave him the power he needed to ruin Haiti for generations.
We (the US) supported Hussein in Iraq until it was no longer convenient.
Those are perhaps the most notorious examples where we "put people in power" who were ruthless to their people, but there are others.
I agree, we have more than enough resources to take care of the population of the world, but you don't really believe anything will change if you go around shooting people do you? All that will do is put other people in power who different in name only. Their actions will continue until something much bigger causes us to stop our pettiness.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; why pick one? The best solution is a combined solution in a small footprint. Each home providing some portion of it's own power through solar, wind, geothermal, or some combination of them all.
Doing it that way won't require any huge infrastructure, it will drastically reduce hydrocarbon dependence, and it will reduce costs drastically on any one of the technologies listed.
You don't get out much do you?
The GP post was clearly a joke.
It's amazing how many people think Dan Brown is a good writer. Every single one of his books is formulaic and every one that I've read is complete crap with respect to the reality of how things get accomplished.
They're light entertainment, but they're not good books worth reading more than once, if they're worth reading at all.
Except that it was the military who armed the Hunters long before the CIA armed any Predators.
Not that I disagree with your point, the military needs both thinking and unthinking combat "equipment" but trying to deny they have any responsibility for weaponizing "autonomous" combat vehicles is slightly inaccurate.
I might say, as an ex-service member, that invading other sovereign states isn't the same thing as "protecting their country".
I'm not saying I disagree with your point that they knew or should have known what they were getting into, just that some people actually believe protecting their country actually entails protecting their country rather than starting wars in other countries.
He did not confirm it, he just didn't deny it. There's a difference.
I've done that quite often, especially when checking email, so I can verify days and such while reading the email in question. It's not uncommon at all.
I don't really know what you're referencing since what the article is about is installation of Moviemaker, and I saw nothing in the email that referenced calendars.
Now, I don't happen to believe Bill Gates wrote this, but if he did write this email, how he chooses to use calendars should be the least of things you should use as your argument that he looks like an idiot. I''d wager that if the email is in fact legitimately from Gates, it's more likely someone else's story that he relayed to make a point.
How is not knowing the name of the "right" application for the job any different in Linux than it is in Windows? Seriously, why would you think excel had anything to do with spreadsheets? I'll give you Word, but Powerpoint, how about Acrobat? Most application's names don't have much to do with what they actually accomplish.
You learn things in Linux the same way you do in Windows, by asking people who already know. The only reason it seems easy in Windows is because more people know and we've been "brought up" on it.
I'll disagree completely with that statement. As I've expressed many times to friends who were asking for advice, it only takes one small change to make a big difference. I'm not saying it necessarily will make a difference, but something new always has at least a temporary level of excitement that comes with it. I've found that the excitement tends to extend to other aspects of life as well, if you're willing to let it.
You need to let go of your elitist grasp of reality (or lack thereof). Plenty of construction workers and tradesmen can afford any of the things you seem to think require a degree. Jet skis aren't particularly expensive and neither are houses, if you plan your finances in the least bit.
As for everything else, he's not selling his identity, he specifically says he isn't selling his identity. Taxes are easy and everyone expects to pay taxes when they buy large ticket items like he's selling, whether they buy online or not.
The job thing is a bit of a ruse, but it's easier for his employer to at least give the person a trial run for a couple weeks than pull people in for interviews and the like. If it doesn't work out, the employer is not really any worse off than if the guy had simply quit.
Yes suicide is more selfish than brave, but that's not what this guy is doing. Reinvention of yourself does take courage, but not a lot when you have $300K plus in the bank (or even half that) to survive off of while you're figuring it all out.
I posted elsewhere than it's good for him, but he's hardly letting anyone down that depends on him. He's quitting a job and leaving where he lives to "start fresh". He has no kids, apparently no longer has a wife, and quitting a job isn't really the end of the world, so the only thing he's really done is sell all his crap and buy new crap as he sees fit. We all do that, we just don't necessarily do it all at once.
First, he's selling his "stuff" and his "life" is just a catchy way of marketing it, as you said. Not particularly newsworthy, but interesting enough in any case, simply because it is a catchy marketing gimmick.
Second, what he will be as a person after selling his "life" will be a whole new thing. He will be able to start from scratch, essentially anywhere he wants, for at least a year or two. During that time he may learn a new language, meet a new wife, whatever.
Reinventing yourself is easy but it takes a little courage. Unfortunately this guy's courage seems to have come from hitting what he considers rock bottom in his life. Good for him, but sucks that it came at such a price.