Dunno, if their DB needs can be met by access -- then the level of db skills and complexity of the db itself is pretty minimal. We're not talking about load balancing, replication or anything of that nature. would it even be relational, or just a single table?:(
You could probably write a PHP front-end in about 20 minutes to handle the data input/retrieval.
If you ever needed to modify the database throw in something like workbench or navicat, and basically like modifying a spreadsheet -- they might need a bit of training, but that should take about an hour
cost of uprooting roads that already exist, where property values are higher, and businesses/residents would be effected: y cost of building solar plants in scrub land that is currently not being used, and due to not being used for any economic purpose, is dirt cheap: x.
In what universe... is y x? really?:(
the united states is huge. and has tons of roads. but most of the space is either empty, or very sparsly populated rural land, maybe focus on building solar/solar thermal arrays there first? maybe?
and further, pretend you have the option to purchase a volt at 40k or something like a used focus (or for the pedantic twits, any decently new, used economy car) at 10k. that 30k price difference equates to more gasoline than you'd ever conceivably use.
Buying a Volt/Tesla/Leaf -- to break even with a used car you'd have to drive the EV/hybrid for quite a bit longer than the car is likely to last.
It equates to spending $40k to save $10k in gas. OR it's greenwashed feel good smugness, hard to tell.
there's hundreds of years of coal and natural gas. those will get burned before consumption decreases. particularly in the developing world. Politically, telling the developing world to curb their energy usage is akin to kicking the ladder out from under them -- and is a non starter.
i'd love to see statistics or some kind of citation about solar panels in the UK providing anything remotely approaching self sufficiency. Powering a tiny euro-EV is one thing, but reducing the need for base load generation is totally another.
What you're describing is honestly green-washed fantasy. Any solution needs to minimize distribution losses, must be available 24/7, and must be able to scale, and most importantly cannot try to coerce people to give up their standard of living. (realpolitik and such... a technical solution is not always politically viable in reality.)
If you want consumption of fossil fuels to decrease, carpeting the world in solar farms and windmills isn't going to suffice.
shut up, just shut the fuck up. ahem, sorry. i definitely look forward to the day when my fridge and microwave can start blogging about about what a pig i am.
that's hand-waving away some really pretty difficult technical hurdles. Namely the generation capabilities near cities.
The areas with ample sun,wind,wave,geo or whatever are not always near the population centers that need the electricity. For cities like Phoenix or Las Vegas, yeah solar/solar thermal is a slam dunk.
Nuclear, with reprocessing spent fuel seems like the most sane solution -- but sadly to many people that's not 'green'. So we're stuck with coal or natural gas. Or the fringe environmental groups who seem to think the real solution is a drastic reduction in consumption (not going to happen.)
On one hand, glad the little fucker got caught. on the other, also glad he was Canadian. Had he been in the US, he'd probably get a life sentence.
16 year old kids do really incredibly dumb anti social stuff, problems arise with something as easy to pull off as this -- and the supposed anonymity of the internet. How many of you remember winnuke (circa 1996)? Nowadays nuking someone would have been met with a knock on the door, and being hauled away in cuffs.
(NOT defending swatting. more criticizing penalties for teenagers in the US. At 16 you're a moron -- you have some inkling of the consequences but you don't really *get* it.)
It was always the "i'm going to ask questions to make myself appear engaged and intelligent" crowd who drew my ire in school. (they typically would strike with the inane questions right as the prof was about to wrap up for the day, possibly when letting class out early)
for ultimate efficiency we should just let students pay for the diploma directly, bypassing this archaic system of 'grades, 'studying' and worst of all 'effort'. In the end it's all useless, and only used for gaming interviewers and HR 'professionals'.
for-profit universities are of course approaching this ideal, but a lingering attachment to ~800 years of university level education are still holding them back:(
if the NSA gets *really* good at intercepting all communication in and out of the US, the genie is out of the bottle, and suddenly the other spookier agencies have that same capability. Similarly corporations like Facebook or Google getting that capability, leads to the same result. And once it's there, there's no dismantling it. It will be a permanent fixture in our society until the day the sun goes nova.
worse, and i think you're missing this really super crucial point -- just because people aren't getting disappeared 'today' does NOT mean they won't get disappeared tomorrow. 'Disappearing' is the most hyperbolic/tin-foil hat way of addressing the overreach, but regardless -- democracy is not compatible with total state surveillance. Freedom of speech is not compatible. We're being really really dumb about this whole thing, and seriously missing the god damn forest for the trees. FWIW: I won't Godwin the thread, but there was a definite progression in Nazi policies. They didn't start off with the final solution.
By allowing the panopticon to be constructed in the first place, we're virtually assuring its use later on -- like literally every other governmental 'tool' its use will at first be controversial, then accepted, and then law enforcement/government/whoever will cry out that it's mandatory in order to keep us safe. Once we give these people a new tool, they will never, ever relinquish it. the only way to win is to prevent them from getting their grubby little mitts on it. But that's cool, google gives us maps and email, and the NSA protects us from cyber terrorists out of Russialand who want to hack our freedoms.
in my completely unscientific and laymen point of view, the overeating is caused by sugar/carbs.
proof? none. anecdote: sure.
you eat steak, it's filling. when you're 'full' you literally don't want another bite. then the waiter asks if you'd like desert. what do you suddenly have room for?
there's a few arguments out there about how insulin prevents the liberation of fat from fat cells, and how a high-carb diet can cause someone to be perpetually hungry while still consuming ample calories -- but dunno, it makes sense to me, on a laymen's level. i'm sure someone more educated (in the biochem sense) could explain it in better detail.
I beg to differ, i think it absolutely explains why obesity is increasing. What i'm not even remotely suggesting though is that restaurants / producers be censured in what they serve (after all McDonald's would serve broccoli if people wanted it.) It is consumer choice, and it is not anyone's business other than the person buying it. (even if it will kill them much sooner than otherwise.)
What I definitely disagree with is that exercise is some kind of panacea for reducing obesity *after it has occurred*. The math seriously works out to something akin to a 200 pound man needing to climb ~20 flights of stairs to burn the equivalent of a single piece of white bread. (90-100 calories?). That's a lot of stairs. And that's only assuming his appetite wouldn't increase to accommodate the increased output. (god i sound like gary taubes, i'll just shut up now.)
Though for what it's worth, people dying of heart disease or other obesity related illness at 50, while tragic are far cheaper than people dying at 85+.
dude, lots and lots of people work manual labor jobs and are still fat. the reality is more like caloric consumption would increase to about 105% of the increase in expenditure. it's like being married and getting a raise.
Yeah but in the 70's and 80's foods were not nearly as laden with sugar, and the portion sizes were different -- and people ate at home more often. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to reason out that human beings do not need a 54 ounce soda. And the availability of drinks in such quantities coincide quite nicely with the rises in obesity.
I was born in 1982 -- growing up, 16 ounces was the standard size for a bottle of soda. then it was 20, and now it's moving on up to a liter. Prior to the early 80's soda sizes were even smaller.
I'm singling out soda because it kind of serves as a yardstick that other portion sizes can be compared to -- which, are out of control. Gigantic, out of control portion sizes at restaurants and fast food places that we frequent more than ever before.. serving a menu comprised mainly out of simple, refined, processed to hell carbohydrates. Oh and we're gulping down pure sugar by the gallon.
suppose for a second that 'greed' is an evolutionary construct -- which i think is plausible (IE, organisms acting in their own self interest, possibly with some altruistic tendencies towards members of it's own species in higher order critters).
Is it unreasonable to assume that the evolutionary pressures that led to humans with our 'greed' and desire to dominate would also come into play on another planet with a different set of starting conditions? IE, they might not look like us, or share the same chemical building blocks, but they'd certainly act like us.
The idea that we as a species are some kind of petulant greedy child just needing to grow up a bit might not be accurate -- it might be baked into our DNA, and by extension other alien life would have the same tendencies: Overuse and over extension of resources, a desire to explore and 'conquer'.. climbing the galactic Mount Everest because it's 'there'.
Prior art only exists when it's one of the big guys trying to invalidate or ignore a commoner's patent.
Have patents always been this broad? it sounds as if they were devised to cover *physical* objects which were non-obvious and all that.. but that train of thought has been lawyered (mutilated) to extend to things like math (software), genes, and god damn geometric shapes or colors.
Slashdot Mirror
or figuring out ways to sell your eyeballs out from under you :(
and THEN losing their jobs?
since the failure would be their fault, not the PHB who pushed it on them due to 'cost cutting'
Dunno, if their DB needs can be met by access -- then the level of db skills and complexity of the db itself is pretty minimal. We're not talking about load balancing, replication or anything of that nature. would it even be relational, or just a single table? :(
You could probably write a PHP front-end in about 20 minutes to handle the data input/retrieval.
If you ever needed to modify the database throw in something like workbench or navicat, and basically like modifying a spreadsheet -- they might need a bit of training, but that should take about an hour
Symantec moved from mountain view to SLC?
cost of uprooting roads that already exist, where property values are higher, and businesses/residents would be effected: y
cost of building solar plants in scrub land that is currently not being used, and due to not being used for any economic purpose, is dirt cheap: x.
In what universe ... is y x? :(
really?
the united states is huge. and has tons of roads. but most of the space is either empty, or very sparsly populated rural land, maybe focus on building solar/solar thermal arrays there first? maybe?
Lady Stark definitely was terminated and stayed resident.
and further, pretend you have the option to purchase a volt at 40k or something like a used focus (or for the pedantic twits, any decently new, used economy car) at 10k. that 30k price difference equates to more gasoline than you'd ever conceivably use.
Buying a Volt/Tesla/Leaf -- to break even with a used car you'd have to drive the EV/hybrid for quite a bit longer than the car is likely to last.
It equates to spending $40k to save $10k in gas. OR it's greenwashed feel good smugness, hard to tell.
there's hundreds of years of coal and natural gas. those will get burned before consumption decreases. particularly in the developing world. Politically, telling the developing world to curb their energy usage is akin to kicking the ladder out from under them -- and is a non starter.
i'd love to see statistics or some kind of citation about solar panels in the UK providing anything remotely approaching self sufficiency. Powering a tiny euro-EV is one thing, but reducing the need for base load generation is totally another.
What you're describing is honestly green-washed fantasy. Any solution needs to minimize distribution losses, must be available 24/7, and must be able to scale, and most importantly cannot try to coerce people to give up their standard of living. (realpolitik and such... a technical solution is not always politically viable in reality.)
If you want consumption of fossil fuels to decrease, carpeting the world in solar farms and windmills isn't going to suffice.
shut up, just shut the fuck up.
ahem, sorry.
i definitely look forward to the day when my fridge and microwave can start blogging about about what a pig i am.
that's hand-waving away some really pretty difficult technical hurdles. Namely the generation capabilities near cities.
The areas with ample sun,wind,wave,geo or whatever are not always near the population centers that need the electricity. For cities like Phoenix or Las Vegas, yeah solar/solar thermal is a slam dunk.
Nuclear, with reprocessing spent fuel seems like the most sane solution -- but sadly to many people that's not 'green'. So we're stuck with coal or natural gas. Or the fringe environmental groups who seem to think the real solution is a drastic reduction in consumption (not going to happen.)
On one hand, glad the little fucker got caught. on the other, also glad he was Canadian. Had he been in the US, he'd probably get a life sentence.
16 year old kids do really incredibly dumb anti social stuff, problems arise with something as easy to pull off as this -- and the supposed anonymity of the internet. How many of you remember winnuke (circa 1996)? Nowadays nuking someone would have been met with a knock on the door, and being hauled away in cuffs.
(NOT defending swatting. more criticizing penalties for teenagers in the US. At 16 you're a moron -- you have some inkling of the consequences but you don't really *get* it.)
It was always the "i'm going to ask questions to make myself appear engaged and intelligent" crowd who drew my ire in school. (they typically would strike with the inane questions right as the prof was about to wrap up for the day, possibly when letting class out early)
the lesson going over diabetes must have been both ironic, and hilarious :)
for ultimate efficiency we should just let students pay for the diploma directly, bypassing this archaic system of 'grades, 'studying' and worst of all 'effort'. In the end it's all useless, and only used for gaming interviewers and HR 'professionals'.
for-profit universities are of course approaching this ideal, but a lingering attachment to ~800 years of university level education are still holding them back :(
and not a moment too soon.
Arizona bay may just become a reality?
the part where you have to use it for base load. (nuclear withstanding, because apparently that's not 'green enough')
yet. seriously, yet.
if the NSA gets *really* good at intercepting all communication in and out of the US, the genie is out of the bottle, and suddenly the other spookier agencies have that same capability. Similarly corporations like Facebook or Google getting that capability, leads to the same result. And once it's there, there's no dismantling it. It will be a permanent fixture in our society until the day the sun goes nova.
worse, and i think you're missing this really super crucial point -- just because people aren't getting disappeared 'today' does NOT mean they won't get disappeared tomorrow. 'Disappearing' is the most hyperbolic/tin-foil hat way of addressing the overreach, but regardless -- democracy is not compatible with total state surveillance. Freedom of speech is not compatible. We're being really really dumb about this whole thing, and seriously missing the god damn forest for the trees. FWIW: I won't Godwin the thread, but there was a definite progression in Nazi policies. They didn't start off with the final solution.
By allowing the panopticon to be constructed in the first place, we're virtually assuring its use later on -- like literally every other governmental 'tool' its use will at first be controversial, then accepted, and then law enforcement/government/whoever will cry out that it's mandatory in order to keep us safe. Once we give these people a new tool, they will never, ever relinquish it. the only way to win is to prevent them from getting their grubby little mitts on it. But that's cool, google gives us maps and email, and the NSA protects us from cyber terrorists out of Russialand who want to hack our freedoms.
in my completely unscientific and laymen point of view, the overeating is caused by sugar/carbs.
proof? none. anecdote: sure.
you eat steak, it's filling. when you're 'full' you literally don't want another bite. then the waiter asks if you'd like desert. what do you suddenly have room for?
there's a few arguments out there about how insulin prevents the liberation of fat from fat cells, and how a high-carb diet can cause someone to be perpetually hungry while still consuming ample calories -- but dunno, it makes sense to me, on a laymen's level. i'm sure someone more educated (in the biochem sense) could explain it in better detail.
I beg to differ, i think it absolutely explains why obesity is increasing. What i'm not even remotely suggesting though is that restaurants / producers be censured in what they serve (after all McDonald's would serve broccoli if people wanted it.) It is consumer choice, and it is not anyone's business other than the person buying it. (even if it will kill them much sooner than otherwise.)
What I definitely disagree with is that exercise is some kind of panacea for reducing obesity *after it has occurred*. The math seriously works out to something akin to a 200 pound man needing to climb ~20 flights of stairs to burn the equivalent of a single piece of white bread. (90-100 calories?). That's a lot of stairs. And that's only assuming his appetite wouldn't increase to accommodate the increased output. (god i sound like gary taubes, i'll just shut up now.)
Though for what it's worth, people dying of heart disease or other obesity related illness at 50, while tragic are far cheaper than people dying at 85+.
dude, lots and lots of people work manual labor jobs and are still fat. the reality is more like caloric consumption would increase to about 105% of the increase in expenditure. it's like being married and getting a raise.
Yeah but in the 70's and 80's foods were not nearly as laden with sugar, and the portion sizes were different -- and people ate at home more often. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to reason out that human beings do not need a 54 ounce soda. And the availability of drinks in such quantities coincide quite nicely with the rises in obesity.
I was born in 1982 -- growing up, 16 ounces was the standard size for a bottle of soda. then it was 20, and now it's moving on up to a liter. Prior to the early 80's soda sizes were even smaller.
I'm singling out soda because it kind of serves as a yardstick that other portion sizes can be compared to -- which, are out of control. Gigantic, out of control portion sizes at restaurants and fast food places that we frequent more than ever before.. serving a menu comprised mainly out of simple, refined, processed to hell carbohydrates. Oh and we're gulping down pure sugar by the gallon.
This shouldn't be a fucking mystery.
build another admin building with a level opulence that would make a Saudi prince feel like a tent dwelling nomad -- duh. :)
suppose for a second that 'greed' is an evolutionary construct -- which i think is plausible (IE, organisms acting in their own self interest, possibly with some altruistic tendencies towards members of it's own species in higher order critters).
Is it unreasonable to assume that the evolutionary pressures that led to humans with our 'greed' and desire to dominate would also come into play on another planet with a different set of starting conditions? IE, they might not look like us, or share the same chemical building blocks, but they'd certainly act like us.
The idea that we as a species are some kind of petulant greedy child just needing to grow up a bit might not be accurate -- it might be baked into our DNA, and by extension other alien life would have the same tendencies: Overuse and over extension of resources, a desire to explore and 'conquer'.. climbing the galactic Mount Everest because it's 'there'.
Prior art only exists when it's one of the big guys trying to invalidate or ignore a commoner's patent.
Have patents always been this broad? it sounds as if they were devised to cover *physical* objects which were non-obvious and all that.. but that train of thought has been lawyered (mutilated) to extend to things like math (software), genes, and god damn geometric shapes or colors.