The area around Bonneville Dam has an elevation of around 600-1,600 feet. Bonneville Dam itself is 197 feet high. Since the land around it is about 1,000 feet elevation, the water is easily contained.
> but elevation and distance from the ocean are only a couple of values that matter
Elevation controls. If the elevation isn't high enough, you can't build a high dam, period. Filling a 197 foot reservoir in central Texas would require flooding the gulf coast up through the entire eastern seaboard, north to New York city. Why? Starting at 60 feet, if you build the dam up 197 feet, when full the surface of the water would be at 60+197 = 257 feet. It would spread in every direction until it encountered an obstacle 257 feet high. Spreading through Louisiana and Alabama and along the coast, the first unbroken obstacle 257 feet high is the Appalachians.
Hydro is great, if you happen to have a gigantic dam handy holding back a huge lake before the water falls hundreds of feet. In North America, that means Hoover Dam, Niagra Falls and a couple others. For the other 99.9% of the population, you need another solution. Texas, for example, is the second largest state and I don't think there are any hydro falls anywhere in Texas. I live 120 miles from the coast and my elevation is about 60 feet. You're not going to get hydro power from the river here.
The first link in Google for "BP annual report" will show exactly what BP claims. See all those millions for oil and gas production tax? That's some of the money they are paying the government for the privilege of extracting the oil. See the other millions for land leases?
You are claiming that someone at BP, somewhere, some time, said something different. You're claiming they said that, feel free to back up your claim. You think I should prove that at no time in history did anyone at BP say anything that you could have misconstrued that way? If you want to play "prove the negative", okay - You posted on Slashdot that you enjoy humping large dogs. Prove you never said that.
I'm sure that sometimes people choose not to read opposing viewpoints. On the other hand, I very much enjoy the opposing viewpoint when it's presented in the style I prefer - with logic, fact based, and backed up with details like relevant numbers. Very often, it's not so much the opposing conclusion that turns me off, but the illogical, purely emotional and often sarcastic presentation.
In the post I'm replying to, for example, I enjoyed the second part, discussing possible reasons, but wouldn't have clicked to read the first part, the pointless Fox News rant. For the same reason, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh - his name-calling silliness doesn't interest me.
Since you mentioned Fox News, I'll use them as an example. The one show I used to enjoy on Fox was Hannity and Coombes (sp?) precisely because they presented both sides and both were generally calm and logical. Both Hannity, the conservative, and Coombes, the liberal, would at times say things like "good point", or "I hadn't thought of it that way". Some people do enjoy hearing an opposing view; most don't like being made fun of and called "idiots", which is what happens all to often in political discourse. Occasionally I listen to Alan's radio show and I enjoy it, though I rarely agree with him. The one thing that bugs me is that he often yells over people and cuts them off when he sees that they have proven him wrong. He didn't do that on TV, not that I noticed.
Wow that's an impressive level of cluelessness. Most of Alaska's government revenue is paid by oil companies. Individuals pay no tax in Alaska, but rather get a check from the oil fund. So not only does BP pay the state of Alaska, that payment ends up as cash in the hands of residents (along with also paying for all roads, police service, etc.)
Too late, that started in earnest in 2009. So far, Obama has handed over $14 billion of your money and mine to "alternative energy" companies. Oil companies, like every all other companies, don't pay taxes on profits they don't make because they had expenses to pay. That's the majority of the "subsidies" the morons complain about - not being taxed on non-existent earnings. The solar and wind companies, on the other hand, get taxpayer cash delivered to them, often just before the CEO closes the company and retires with a wad of your money. It's gotten so bad that last year, most wind subsidies went to build windmills placed in locations with significantly below average wind. You're supposed to put windmills on hilltops, where it's windy. It makes no sense to put a windmill in a valley - unless you're building the windmill just to collect the government kickback, with no intention of producing usable electric power.
TFS says "only seven... in advanced stages of development". How many new antibiotics do we need in the next five or ten years? If seven are in advanced stages of development, that means there are a couple dozen in earlier stages, to go up for approval twenty years from now. Do we need a dozen brand new antibiotics every year? Should we be skeptical of this article's assumption that seven at a time isn't enough?
What the heck are you talking about? None of those companies is in Mississippi, in terms of business operations or where they are incorporated. That's for the exact reasons I mentioned - MS doesn't have the internet infrastructure, the skilled workers wanting the jobs, etc.
They are in fact in California and Washington state, so it makes sense for them to pay taxes in California and Washington.
Yes, my comment above is predicated on these companies being taxed where they primarily operate, not where they file incorporation. That shouldn't be too tough.
Companies move to states that have low taxes, good infrastructure, where people need the jobs, etc. That sounds like a win to me - it works better for everyone except maybe the bureaucrats who did a crappy job, having high taxes but not using it to build strong infrastructure, a strong workforce, or anything else that attracts business.
It doesn't matter. If you think Tesla was the big loser who was somehow "destroyed" by JP Morgan, the fact remains that the age of the great industrialists was way back then. The claim was that today is the period of the great American industrial empires. To anybody with any idea of American history, that idea is preposterous. Today's companies are primarily owned by millions of grandma's via their 401K.
I happen to disagree with the assertion that Tesla was destroyed - we both know his name, despite the fact that he was more talk than action.
> The last time I checked, electrons weren't known to corrode copper.
Try hooking a battery to two wires , with the other ends in a glass of water. They'll corrode 1,000 times as fast as the same wires without the battery. The corrosion process ALSO requires oxygen, either air trapped between the copper stands when it was made or moisture which finds it's way in.
Quite the opposite. It was during America's heyday that someone with the drive and skill of a JP Morgan, Carnegie, etc could build vast enterprises in the US. Today, merely investing your retirement savings in a company gets you punished because all those businesses building stuff are evil, don't you know. Providing products and services that people need and want is the work of the devil. Heck, eventually paying off your house through 30 years of hard work makes you a "rich bastard" who needs to have his "wealth" (family farm) redistributed to other people who blew their money on electronics while you used yours to pay off your mortgage.
> Asia is playing catch up very very fast, and before long, they might even get ahead of you guys !
Who do you think is financing all of these new government programs in the US? That's China's money we're living off of. The US is spending WAY more than we make, racking up insurmountable debt to Asia. "The borrower is slave to the lender", as the saying goes. Meaning, a larger and larger portion of our earnings are paid to China in the form of interest. The "great American companies" are largely owned by Asian owners now. They don't have to "get ahead of us", we work for them.
I don't think that's what GP said. GP asked "where are the Europeans and Americans?", perhaps pointing out that lately the US and EU countries are only in the news for fail of various kinds. In the fifties and again from about 1985-2000, all the big space and science news, the big new machines, etc. were all coming mainly from the US and the UK. About 15 years ago, something happened such that the US in no longer the leading nation it once was. Perhaps that's what GP is referring to.
Your reasoning sounds logical. When I actually tried it, I had conversations with many women, went on dates with over a dozen, including one who looked liked a supermodel, and eventually found my AWESOME wife on mate1.com.
I'm a scrawny nerd who isn't handsome, but I did some things right, like posting action photos. There was me in my jetski, me on horseback, etc. I guess women seeing those photos consciously or subconsciously saw that dating me would mean doing fun stuff like jetsking and horseback riding, etc. Also I suppose those pics suggest I may be financially stable. Women like stability, security.
The summary talks about "how attractive you are" and "supermodels". I hope the study doesn't look at it that way, because that's incorrect. The correct question is "to whom are you attractive?"
Chris Brown dated a superstar. Is he attractive? I'm a total nerd, and not particularly good looking. My wife married me and finds Chris Brown revolting. So who is more attractive, Chris Brown or me? Neither, we attract different women. On the other hand, my wife thinks Pavarotti is extremely romantic. Is Pavarotti more attractive than Lil Wayne? Each is more attractive to some some women.
If I were single, I'd date Alyssa Milano for sure. Miley Cyrus, I take pity on. I wouldn't sleep with her, I'd suggest she put her clothes back on.* So which is more attractive? A good system would match pairs likely to find each other attractive, not assign a single attractiveness score.
* okay so maybe I'd pity her AND sleep with her before I suggested she put some clothes on.
VOIP can be set to different bandwidth. A high bandwidth setting has clearer sound but is more likely to drop out. A modem or fax will work over a VOIP line that is set to about twice the bandwidth of the modem. So for example a 64K voip channel will support a modem of up to about 32K.
Where I live, the underground water and sewer lines have far more problems than the overhead cables. In the last 18 months, our water has been off for repairs three times, our cable has had no problems. That suggests to me that underground is not necessarily more reliable than overhead.
Bah. I bet you think it would be more effective for doctors to spend 20 minutes with the patient rather than 4 minutes with the patient and 16 minutes on t government paperwork.
I bet you also think eating healthy foods like vegetables and whole grains works better than eliminating $15 copays by exchanging them for $163 tax expenditures.
Slashdot Mirror
> Google didn't develop Android, they acquired it.
That's as true as saying Microsoft didn't develop DOS/Windows, they acquired it.
Android 1.0 ALPHA was after Google bought Android. Everything from 1.0 through 4.4 has been developed by Google.
The area around Bonneville Dam has an elevation of around 600-1,600 feet. Bonneville Dam itself is 197 feet high.
Since the land around it is about 1,000 feet elevation, the water is easily contained.
> but elevation and distance from the ocean are only a couple of values that matter
Elevation controls. If the elevation isn't high enough, you can't build a high dam, period.
Filling a 197 foot reservoir in central Texas would require flooding the gulf coast up through the entire eastern seaboard, north to New York city.
Why? Starting at 60 feet, if you build the dam up 197 feet, when full the surface of the water would be at 60+197 = 257 feet.
It would spread in every direction until it encountered an obstacle 257 feet high. Spreading through Louisiana and Alabama and along the coast, the first unbroken obstacle 257 feet high is the Appalachians.
Hydro is great, if you happen to have a gigantic dam handy holding back a huge lake before the water falls hundreds of feet. In North America, that means Hoover Dam, Niagra Falls and a couple others. For the other 99.9% of the population, you need another solution. Texas, for example, is the second largest state and I don't think there are any hydro falls anywhere in Texas. I live 120 miles from the coast and my elevation is about 60 feet. You're not going to get hydro power from the river here.
The first link in Google for "BP annual report" will show exactly what BP claims. See all those millions for oil and gas production tax? That's some of the money they are paying the government for the privilege of extracting the oil. See the other millions for land leases?
You are claiming that someone at BP, somewhere, some time, said something different. You're claiming they said that, feel free to back up your claim. You think I should prove that at no time in history did anyone at BP say anything that you could have misconstrued that way? If you want to play "prove the negative", okay - You posted on Slashdot that you enjoy humping large dogs. Prove you never said that.
I'm sure that sometimes people choose not to read opposing viewpoints. On the other hand, I very much enjoy the opposing viewpoint when it's presented in the style I prefer - with logic, fact based, and backed up with details like relevant numbers. Very often, it's not so much the opposing conclusion that turns me off, but the illogical, purely emotional and often sarcastic presentation.
In the post I'm replying to, for example, I enjoyed the second part, discussing possible reasons, but wouldn't have clicked to read the first part, the pointless Fox News rant. For the same reason, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh - his name-calling silliness doesn't interest me.
Since you mentioned Fox News, I'll use them as an example. The one show I used to enjoy on Fox was Hannity and Coombes (sp?) precisely because they presented both sides and both were generally calm and logical. Both Hannity, the conservative, and Coombes, the liberal, would at times say things like "good point", or "I hadn't thought of it that way". Some people do enjoy hearing an opposing view; most don't like being made fun of and called "idiots", which is what happens all to often in political discourse. Occasionally I listen to Alan's radio show and I enjoy it, though I rarely agree with him. The one thing that bugs me is that he often yells over people and cuts them off when he sees that they have proven him wrong. He didn't do that on TV, not that I noticed.
The facts in your post? The fact that you either don't know how to read a financial report or don't know what "oil and gas production tax" is?
Wow that's an impressive level of cluelessness.
Most of Alaska's government revenue is paid by oil companies. Individuals pay no tax in Alaska, but rather get a check from the oil fund. So not only does BP pay the state of Alaska, that payment ends up as cash in the hands of residents (along with also paying for all roads, police service, etc.)
Too late, that started in earnest in 2009.
So far, Obama has handed over $14 billion of your money and mine to "alternative energy" companies. Oil companies, like every all other companies, don't pay taxes on profits they don't make because they had expenses to pay. That's the majority of the "subsidies" the morons complain about - not being taxed on non-existent earnings. The solar and wind companies, on the other hand, get taxpayer cash delivered to them, often just before the CEO closes the company and retires with a wad of your money. It's gotten so bad that last year, most wind subsidies went to build windmills placed in locations with significantly below average wind. You're supposed to put windmills on hilltops, where it's windy. It makes no sense to put a windmill in a valley - unless you're building the windmill just to collect the government kickback, with no intention of producing usable electric power.
TFS says "only seven ... in advanced stages of development". How many new antibiotics do we need in the next five or ten years? If seven are in advanced stages of development, that means there are a couple dozen in earlier stages, to go up for approval twenty years from now. Do we need a dozen brand new antibiotics every year? Should we be skeptical of this article's assumption that seven at a time isn't enough?
What the heck are you talking about? None of those companies is in Mississippi, in terms of business operations or where they are incorporated. That's for the exact reasons I mentioned - MS doesn't have the internet infrastructure, the skilled workers wanting the jobs, etc.
They are in fact in California and Washington state, so it makes sense for them to pay taxes in California and Washington.
Yes, my comment above is predicated on these companies being taxed where they primarily operate, not where they file incorporation. That shouldn't be too tough.
Companies move to states that have low taxes, good infrastructure, where people need the jobs, etc. That sounds like a win to me - it works better for everyone except maybe the bureaucrats who did a crappy job, having high taxes but not using it to build strong infrastructure, a strong workforce, or anything else that attracts business.
It doesn't matter. If you think Tesla was the big loser who was somehow "destroyed" by JP Morgan, the fact remains that the age of the great industrialists was way back then. The claim was that today is the period of the great American industrial empires. To anybody with any idea of American history, that idea is preposterous. Today's companies are primarily owned by millions of grandma's via their 401K.
I happen to disagree with the assertion that Tesla was destroyed - we both know his name, despite the fact that he was more talk than action.
> The last time I checked, electrons weren't known to corrode copper.
Try hooking a battery to two wires , with the other ends in a glass of water. They'll corrode 1,000 times as fast as the same wires without the battery. The corrosion process ALSO requires oxygen, either air trapped between the copper stands when it was made or moisture which finds it's way in.
Nevertheless, I see your point.
Quite the opposite. It was during America's heyday that someone with the drive and skill of a JP Morgan, Carnegie, etc could build vast enterprises in the US. Today, merely investing your retirement savings in a company gets you punished because all those businesses building stuff are evil, don't you know. Providing products and services that people need and want is the work of the devil. Heck, eventually paying off your house through 30 years of hard work makes you a "rich bastard" who needs to have his "wealth" (family farm) redistributed to other people who blew their money on electronics while you used yours to pay off your mortgage.
> Asia is playing catch up very very fast, and before long, they might even get ahead of you guys !
Who do you think is financing all of these new government programs in the US? That's China's money we're living off of. The US is spending WAY more than we make, racking up insurmountable debt to Asia. "The borrower is slave to the lender", as the saying goes. Meaning, a larger and larger portion of our earnings are paid to China in the form of interest. The "great American companies" are largely owned by Asian owners now. They don't have to "get ahead of us", we work for them.
I don't think that's what GP said.
GP asked "where are the Europeans and Americans?", perhaps pointing out that lately the US and EU countries are only in the news for fail of various kinds.
In the fifties and again from about 1985-2000, all the big space and science news, the big new machines, etc. were all coming mainly from the US and the UK. About 15 years ago, something happened such that the US in no longer the leading nation it once was. Perhaps that's what GP is referring to.
True, and look at all the gorgeous models who date Lil Wayne:
http://m.whosdatedwho.com/p3413/lil-wayne/
Taste is hard to quantify, I suppose.
Your reasoning sounds logical. When I actually tried it, I had conversations with many women, went on dates with over a dozen, including one who looked liked a supermodel, and eventually found my AWESOME wife on mate1.com.
I'm a scrawny nerd who isn't handsome, but I did some things right, like posting action photos. There was me in my jetski, me on horseback, etc. I guess women seeing those photos consciously or subconsciously saw that dating me would mean doing fun stuff like jetsking and horseback riding, etc. Also I suppose those pics suggest I may be financially stable. Women like stability, security.
That was good for a chuckle, thanks.
The summary talks about "how attractive you are" and "supermodels". I hope the study doesn't look at it that way, because that's incorrect. The correct question is "to whom are you attractive?"
Chris Brown dated a superstar. Is he attractive? I'm a total nerd, and not particularly good looking. My wife married me and finds Chris Brown revolting. So who is more attractive, Chris Brown or me? Neither, we attract different women. On the other hand, my wife thinks Pavarotti is extremely romantic. Is Pavarotti more attractive than Lil Wayne? Each is more attractive to some some women.
If I were single, I'd date Alyssa Milano for sure. Miley Cyrus, I take pity on. I wouldn't sleep with her, I'd suggest she put her clothes back on.* So which is more attractive? A good system would match pairs likely to find each other attractive, not assign a single attractiveness score.
* okay so maybe I'd pity her AND sleep with her before I suggested she put some clothes on.
VOIP can be set to different bandwidth. A high bandwidth setting has clearer sound but is more likely to drop out. A modem or fax will work over a VOIP line that is set to about twice the bandwidth of the modem. So for example a 64K voip channel will support a modem of up to about 32K.
Where I live, the underground water and sewer lines have far more problems than the overhead cables. In the last 18 months, our water has been off for repairs three times, our cable has had no problems. That suggests to me that underground is not necessarily more reliable than overhead.
Bah. I bet you think it would be more effective for doctors to spend 20 minutes with the patient rather than 4 minutes with the patient and 16 minutes on t government paperwork.
I bet you also think eating healthy foods like vegetables and whole grains works better than eliminating $15 copays by exchanging them for $163 tax expenditures.
This document has a table of the exact numbers before and after, with links to the official sources:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wok85h6ctfwjwam/comp1_assignment2_evaluative.odt