While the Republicans have been doing more electronic voter fraud, Democrats are still king of the undead voter demographic, lost ballot boxes, and voter intimidation.
The fact that none of this bothers anyone is fairly indicative that it doesn't matter if the system is broken. Nobody cares enough to do anything about it, so the system has failed, allowing for the fraud to occur.
No, that's the other party affiliation that kills people. This party affiliation's enemies usually end up having their hypocricies exposed, and failing those, have something embarassing manufactured to be expossesd...
I'd say the new Star Trek remake movie is a good place to start. My wife watched ToS shortly after watching that film.
If people like good stories, ToS is really the best place to stat. As an added bonus, some of the effects they did back then are absolutely stunning for their technology capabilities of the day (especially on a nice HD screen).
. Believe it or not, people will work for _much less_ money if you create an engaging place to work.
They will? I suppose it largely depends on the kind of people you're trying to hire. The people who know how and are willing to do everything - development, systems, networking, architecture, etc. - most certainly are not. The people who are already getting underpaid for their ability and skills are not. People who are later on in life (eg. married, children, mortgage) are not due to obligations.
On environment, they should allow drinking in the workplace (oh gasp!).
You could just drink in the work place, anyway. (If it's a firing offense in the employee handbook, on the other hand, that's another matter...)
They need to tear up timesheets (no one takes them seriously anyway).
Couldn't agree more.
They need to _fight_ actively to retain key talent.
How are they going to do that if they're paying less? Free lunches and working at home don't go very far if you get a 10% pay cut.:)
That said, someone making significantly more than their cost of living (eg. someone able to save 30% of their income if they wanted to, as is true for most skilled younger IT workers) is going to be able to make that jump. They just wouldn't want to, because their next job's pay will be based on their last job, in all likelihood - and there's no guarantee the lower-paying employer is going to be a good one they want to stick with.
I also imagine that paying less for talent may be somewhat enabled by lifestyle benefits (living outside a city; living in the thriving urban center) not inherent to the specific company, or by being one of the only companies in the area which specializes in that domain of expertise. That said, you're going to probably have more young people interested than older: the older ones are jaded and tired as hell of abusive employee/employer relationships; they have responsibilities; and so on.
wow, we are on different planets. I live in the valley (been working here about 20 yrs) and yet find the employment situation very dark, indeed. I'm not currently working fulltime, I'm a software guy with decades of programming and even some hardware design/implementation (along with firmware to drive it) lately. do I find even interviews? no!
That's because job board and headhunter crawlers don't hit on your resume, I suspect. If you had 5+ years of Drupal, RoR, or other high-level implementation language (eg. "Puppet script development") on your resume, someone would be knocking on your door. Knowing the right people in the right software development fields (as there are many, it's not a single field) would probably help a bit too, but I'm guessing many of the devs you know in your field are out of work, too...
If it doesn't have quick IPO potential, nobody's interested in spending money on it anymore. That's the sad truth.
Yeah, the part where you're being manipulated to feel guilty about there not being enough women in IT/CS fields. Next thing you know, this or something like it will be used as an excuse to bring more women into the country on H1B programs, for the purpose of diversity. ANd if you think I'm kidding... well, just wait.
Women don't go into IT/CS fields for the same reason that they don't go into, say, Engineering all that often: they don't fit in. Most women are still looking for a career for its socially-expanding capabilities. First and foremost, that means it's going to pay well, and second of all, it's going to allow them to rub shoulders with people they both want to socialize with and who might do some good for their social/personal life in the long term.
Just because many (most) women no longer see college as a marriage prep school to culture them and help them find a wealthy husband does not mean that they are not sating the same underlying desires.
IT/CS fields do not pay well compared to other fields, such as those you can enter with advanced degrees in medicine and law. It is nowhere near as prestigious as either. Their predispositions lead to them picking submissive disciplines, like paralegal and nursing as a result of this (and resulting in the mythical gender wage gap).
IT/CS fields are unforgiving, unrelenting, and unappreciated in society as a whole. They're hard. Why would anyone in their right mind, and who doesn't have an arcane ability for bullshitting people into thinking they're competent, who doesn't have an underlying love for what they're doing, get into this? They don't.
Chalk this one up to women, by and large, being much more socially perceptive than men. Particularly men of the geeky persuasion.
People, as a whole, understand that change takes time. Putting in another wall, a doorway, or adding a couple floors to a structure may take time and it may not even be possible, depending on what's asked.
These same people will balk and scream like children when you tell them that no, you can't make software that does what they want on a moment's notice because that's not what they asked to have written or designed. They'll ask for a "bungalow", just something quick and small, but before it's done they're wanting a second story pool.
And, by god, if you want to keep your job, you better damn well deliver. If their high school dropout kid can plumb a sink on the 2nd floor, a highly paid professional should be able to quickly put in a pool. Right?
Considering it's going to take days if not weeks for the cement in the substructure to set up properly, I highly doubt I'd want to be in a building constructed like this.
The other half of controlling Black Plague is nutrition. A big part of why it thrived was due to inadequate high-nutrition foods, resulting in diminished immune systems. (That's a part of your 'prevention' picture.)
Who? The people who have been indoctrinated by the farce of "animals are just people, too". It reduces their humanity while at the same time elevating their perception of vermin like rats and mice. Net result: absolutely no discernment.
This is what happens when you see more animals on a daily basis in pet food commercials than you have real animals in a lifetime (amongst other similar limited-life-experience perception inducers). Things like spouting out about the horrible evil of the US Government jackboot cleptogratic thuggery, while completely (and willfully) ignorant of how most of the rest of the world operates. (Sure, it ain't pretty, but it could be, and probably will be, a whole lot worse. Histronics only makes people ignore you and the case you need to present.)
would argue that the very fact that it IS illegal is why you get super strength pot now, same as during prohibition you were more likely to get bathtub rotgut than you were a nice light wine. When things are illegal it simply makes more sense to sell the most concentrated you can because the laws treat mellow and strong pot equally and a customer can get more for less by buying stronger stuff.
The only thing prohibition really does is change the quality of what's available, not so much the strength. There's 180 proof alcohol available today, and people buy it still. They mostly don't, because 180 proof can't be consumed straight, and if it could be, it wouldn't be pleasant in the least bit. There is, however, a good market for stuff in the 'non-distilled' range, just as there was back then. The reason people buy the non-distilled, 'weak' stuff is due to availability and convenience, primarily. If the quality of the 'low refined' stuff was roughly the same today as the 'highly refined' stuff, you can bet that people would be going for the higher refined goods. However, with alcohol there's the case that the stuff in the 10-20% range is typically "very good" and preferred by most: more flavor, more variety, and not distilled.
There are, of course, those of us who prefer drinking hard liquor straight. That is not the majority, however.
Look, I smoke cigarettes and cigars. I like them - both the feeling they give me and the oral act of smoking them. In particular, I like good tobacco. If tobacco was illegal tomorrow, I'd be pissed off, because it would still be available but much more expensive. A "dime bag" of tobacco would piss me off, because I know it probably wouldn't even be good leaf and would be exhorbinant. I wouldn't so much be purchasing the 'high potency' stuff because it's better, but simply because the low potency stuff isn't even worth bothering with (for one reason or another).
For the record, I go with an earlier poster in saying that pot smokers make the best arguement through their continued existence and embarassing behavior as to why pot should remain illegal. Even meth users seem to adapt better after long-term use to functioning within society than early-life pot smokers, from what I've seen. Why? Because once they've stopped geeking, they actually try to lead a successful life. They may relapse, and they may have a hard time of it, but they're trying. A modicum of effort is something most potheads lack, even after they've stopped. It does something to their brains which seems to short-circuit all the effort behind what's required to make their aspirations actually work. To compare, drunks usually have to hit a very low point before they're functioning as poorly as a pothead does on a daily basis.
Case in point: I believe "lacking the essential motivation to take responsibility for one's self and improve one's own situation" can be fairly well summed up by the behaviors of the indigenous people where hashish consumption is a common, almost universal pasttime.
I have a feeling once this dark and shameful chapter of our history is over and pot is legal you'll see that just like with alcohol you'll have so many choices in flavor, texture, and intoxication factor that just like with booze there will be something for everyone
That may be true, but my understanding is that pot already "comes" in many, many different varities and potencies. Some people don't like the 'high' they get from pot, however - regardless the strain. It isn't for everyone.
The reality is closer to betting on horses. You've got your odds, which are as likely to be wrong as they are right. Some big money is involved, but usually it's just a series of small to medium wagers. Sometimes people make out big, sometimes they lose out big, but mostly it's just back and forth with a small select making out repeatedly due to knowing a guy, or being really good with numbers and subtle with their bets so the big guys don't catch on too quickly.
It should be, and probably would be, if using the GPU for general computing purposes as you would a CPU was possible yet. But it isn't, so it hardly matters.
I don't suppose it does much good mentioning at this point that the Pandaboard has what is at this point a fairly dated CPU with a fairly low clock. When it came out, it was decent, but at this point it's almost 2 years old. The Tegra 3, for instance, puts it to shame in pretty much every regard.
I don't know about that. Our house has a last-die Sandybridge i5 which runs circles around the E350 we also have. Power use is roughly par between the two.
My guess, is they may be using a different power supply. The pandaboard takes 5V @ 4 amp - hardly anything, really. A single quality 90% efficiency desktop PSU with 6 5V rails will supply that much power and, even if not operating at peak efficiency (low-amp high-efficiency PSUs are hard to find), it may have beat out the common wallwarts used for the devices.
Sandybridge, and now Ivybridge, are drastic hand over fist improvements over their previous architectual designs - particularly in terms of power use. An i5 at idle, for instance, is more power efficient than the first generation Atoms as well as the first-generation AMD Bobcat boards (eg. Hudson), but can do a whole lot more while not idled and still maintains a relatively low power usage.
I suspect that the reason we never saw the Atom SoC (Atom 2) was because the power savings engineering went into Sandy and Ivy. For what Atom does, it does it well enough - it hits that performance mark. If they can push the envelope on their high end, not only do their big customers save (datacenters, OEMs, etc.) but they're always able to later come back and scale and pair those high-end designs down for embedded use later.
This is exactly what California power companies (well, PG&E) does. They "artificially" set power availability low, and as a result, you're paying over $0.50/kwh during much of the winter months due to heating - despite the fact that you're really not using all that much power to begin with.
Besides, with a dynamic IP any change to it will take your website offline until DNS catches up.
That may be true, but my ISP hasn't changed my home IP in the past 4 years. The only times I've had IP changes is when I've either moved or had a service level/type change, with multiple providers. With mail being able to be down for up to 3 days or so before things start to bounce, it's not really a problem. Generally, if the ISP isn't blocking it, it's considered good to go, despite any ISP documentation. (If you're causing security problems, that's another matter.)
This could simply be caused by the explosive deer population growth over the past decade (in most of the US). Deer are now one of the biggest vectors for disease in the US - lime disease, west nile, and many other things which ticks, fleas, and mites carry. People have even hypothesized that deer are partially responsible for the migration of bedbugs westward, from the Northeast regions.
Deer and other game do compete for food, and due to deer population numbers, they will push out the other species through starvation. Ticks, fleas, etc. don't really help matters.
Deer populations throughout the US need to be seriously curbed. In some parts of the country, it's so bad that they've had several mass die offs during a bad acorn winter where you could walk through the woods and find emaciated carcasses.
While I do not deny that the Alps glaciers, the polar and anpolar ice caps, etc. melting, I have to wonder a couple things
* Is there regional cooling occurring somewhere at a similar rate, just not as evident because there are no newly formed glaciers yet? * Might it be related to global climate shifting, more so than just heating? * Might the fact that the glaciers are shrinking result in the fact that there is less ice to cool the air, and thus the amount of cooling those giant ice cubes have aided in the global scheme of things be diminished somewhat exponentially, in the same way as a bunch of small ice cubes is nowhere near as effective as a large one of the same volume at maintaining temperature?
Don't look at me, I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm just thinking out loud.
And, actually, enforcing a "veggie-only" law and outlawing meat for everyone would actually do more, be cheaper and be accepted just as much (i.e. virtually zero).
It would? On what basis? There is no evidence of this aside from fancy little fliers pushed out by NGOs like PETA on the basis of animal cruelty.
People who make this claim are, in my opinion, not really thinking much at all.
* Without meat, you will have no source of the necessary fats for proper muscle and brain functionality. They barely exist anywhere else, and where they do exist, it's in places like $12/lb nuts - and they're only that cheap due to near-slave labor. * Meat, in most cases, means beef. Beef, which comes from cows and is primarily raised in locations throughout the world where no crops can be reasonably grown fruitfully for a number of reasons: low soil nutrient density, short day cycles, short growing seasons, low moisture levels, and so on. Believe it or not, the amount of petrolium needed (fertilizer, pesticide, fuel) to make these lands viable ceased being viable even at the OPEC debacle. * Most of these "meat is bad, mkay" claims are based on preposterous assumptions like: a cow eats nothing but corn for it's entire life. In truth, most cattle do not eat much grain in their lives at all. * There are very few crops which can even be effectively grown industrially. Basically, if you want to grow things for teh whole planet, you're looking at soy and grains and a handful of seasonal food, like cranberries. It's either that or you have to give up your cities within a generation due to the plagues brought on by malnutrition and the need to get into the countryside on a regular basis to harvest and care for the food.
Let's also just ignore the fact that ready access to meat is, by some estimates, the biggest distinguishing factor behind why while Europe was floundering economically, the US was growing in leaps and bounds economically - in innovation and advancement.
As for solutions, we only have a couple, and they're roughly the same as what we've been faced with throughout history when there are population pressures (whether they're caused by food, war, or some other thing):
* stop breeding * start killing
One is more immediate and shows much greater results. They're also not mutually exclusive options. Breeding reduction can help, but it very much has to be 'fixed' at the local cultural level and can NOT occur within anything so short as a century, or you will have the same starvation/genocide issue due to imbalanced worker numbers.
In any case, your half-lip advice of burning all the oil now is stupid and not going to help any situation. When building a sustainable society with limited resources, the first key is to have enough resources to sustain yourself NOW and worry about the long-term implications later. That's where we are as a society now, though we're looking for better energy sources and effficiency of what we use today instead of eliminating things and going back to a neolithic lifestyle. Burning all the oil would, in short, just send us back to the dark ages. Even the ancient societies burned petroleum for lighting and heat.
Yes - as I said, it is fortunate that in some countries research which contradicts the prevailing view of the government and it's financial 'contributors' (such as the Heartland Institute) is allowed to continue, at least outside of North Carolina. In Australia such intellectual honesty is not permitted - governments threaten errant scientists with a loss of funding, while denialists openly threaten their lives and the lives of their families.
It might surprise you to find out, then, that this isn't the case at all.
In the US, the biggest long-running political contributors in the country have been Unions. Unions, as well as climate change, are the bastion of the political Left in the US. These institutions are the producers of every single 'legal' field in the US, from which all politicans tend to come from. They feed the beast of growth known as bureaucracy much more than the Right by perpetuating their own existence - much in the same way a corporation does through business schools. Academia supports both unions and labors at the ideological level, and (now) both are funded largely by government money. Government money which is metered out largely at the digression of bureaucrats. The government -> academia -> sciences -> government loop is much more complete than the "big business" silliness you envision.
This isn't to say that the political Right, of cronyism and capitalization, is better or preferable. In the US, the Left and the Right aren't enemies. They're like ticks and fleas on the back of a dog: they're both trying to suck the life out of the damned dog.
If you don't believe these environmentalism studies are highly motivated by political agendas and back-room agreements, you've got very little coming to you. You're not dealing with real science in many cases here, you're dealing with observational sciences which have the presumption to think their adequacy to be greater than it is - by predicting the future. It's interesting, to be sure, and should be considered while assessing how we proceed as a culture, but it's by no means accurate.
If it were even remotely accurate, we'd have died of starvation, drought, an ice age or two, and insufficient arable lands by now, at least once for each. Each of the prevailing political "Earth Day" agendas seem to be in conflict of the ones from 10 years prior, and each time there is someone making massive, massive money on it. When you consider the basis on which primary claims have been made at the time (eg. CFCs), and how despite a massive reversal in their use, the things theorized as "things which must be done, OR ELSE" had absolutely zero impact on the outcomes. The outcomes of these studies are so inaccurate, they'd be better off just flipping a coin.
I'm sorry, but what would've been wrong with "please upgrade your browser, it's ancient and insecure" like used to be done? Maintaining compatibility at all is perpetuating its use.
Slashdot Mirror
While the Republicans have been doing more electronic voter fraud, Democrats are still king of the undead voter demographic, lost ballot boxes, and voter intimidation.
The fact that none of this bothers anyone is fairly indicative that it doesn't matter if the system is broken. Nobody cares enough to do anything about it, so the system has failed, allowing for the fraud to occur.
No, that's the other party affiliation that kills people. This party affiliation's enemies usually end up having their hypocricies exposed, and failing those, have something embarassing manufactured to be expossesd...
I'd say the new Star Trek remake movie is a good place to start. My wife watched ToS shortly after watching that film.
If people like good stories, ToS is really the best place to stat. As an added bonus, some of the effects they did back then are absolutely stunning for their technology capabilities of the day (especially on a nice HD screen).
. Believe it or not, people will work for _much less_ money if you create an engaging place to work.
They will? I suppose it largely depends on the kind of people you're trying to hire. The people who know how and are willing to do everything - development, systems, networking, architecture, etc. - most certainly are not. The people who are already getting underpaid for their ability and skills are not. People who are later on in life (eg. married, children, mortgage) are not due to obligations.
On environment, they should allow drinking in the workplace (oh gasp!).
You could just drink in the work place, anyway. (If it's a firing offense in the employee handbook, on the other hand, that's another matter...)
They need to tear up timesheets (no one takes them seriously anyway).
Couldn't agree more.
They need to _fight_ actively to retain key talent.
How are they going to do that if they're paying less? Free lunches and working at home don't go very far if you get a 10% pay cut. :)
That said, someone making significantly more than their cost of living (eg. someone able to save 30% of their income if they wanted to, as is true for most skilled younger IT workers) is going to be able to make that jump. They just wouldn't want to, because their next job's pay will be based on their last job, in all likelihood - and there's no guarantee the lower-paying employer is going to be a good one they want to stick with.
I also imagine that paying less for talent may be somewhat enabled by lifestyle benefits (living outside a city; living in the thriving urban center) not inherent to the specific company, or by being one of the only companies in the area which specializes in that domain of expertise. That said, you're going to probably have more young people interested than older: the older ones are jaded and tired as hell of abusive employee/employer relationships; they have responsibilities; and so on.
wow, we are on different planets. I live in the valley (been working here about 20 yrs) and yet find the employment situation very dark, indeed. I'm not currently working fulltime, I'm a software guy with decades of programming and even some hardware design/implementation (along with firmware to drive it) lately. do I find even interviews? no!
That's because job board and headhunter crawlers don't hit on your resume, I suspect. If you had 5+ years of Drupal, RoR, or other high-level implementation language (eg. "Puppet script development") on your resume, someone would be knocking on your door. Knowing the right people in the right software development fields (as there are many, it's not a single field) would probably help a bit too, but I'm guessing many of the devs you know in your field are out of work, too...
If it doesn't have quick IPO potential, nobody's interested in spending money on it anymore. That's the sad truth.
Yeah, the part where you're being manipulated to feel guilty about there not being enough women in IT/CS fields. Next thing you know, this or something like it will be used as an excuse to bring more women into the country on H1B programs, for the purpose of diversity. ANd if you think I'm kidding... well, just wait.
Pretty much.
Women don't go into IT/CS fields for the same reason that they don't go into, say, Engineering all that often: they don't fit in. Most women are still looking for a career for its socially-expanding capabilities. First and foremost, that means it's going to pay well, and second of all, it's going to allow them to rub shoulders with people they both want to socialize with and who might do some good for their social/personal life in the long term.
Just because many (most) women no longer see college as a marriage prep school to culture them and help them find a wealthy husband does not mean that they are not sating the same underlying desires.
IT/CS fields do not pay well compared to other fields, such as those you can enter with advanced degrees in medicine and law. It is nowhere near as prestigious as either. Their predispositions lead to them picking submissive disciplines, like paralegal and nursing as a result of this (and resulting in the mythical gender wage gap).
IT/CS fields are unforgiving, unrelenting, and unappreciated in society as a whole. They're hard. Why would anyone in their right mind, and who doesn't have an arcane ability for bullshitting people into thinking they're competent, who doesn't have an underlying love for what they're doing, get into this? They don't.
Chalk this one up to women, by and large, being much more socially perceptive than men. Particularly men of the geeky persuasion.
People, as a whole, understand that change takes time. Putting in another wall, a doorway, or adding a couple floors to a structure may take time and it may not even be possible, depending on what's asked.
These same people will balk and scream like children when you tell them that no, you can't make software that does what they want on a moment's notice because that's not what they asked to have written or designed. They'll ask for a "bungalow", just something quick and small, but before it's done they're wanting a second story pool.
And, by god, if you want to keep your job, you better damn well deliver. If their high school dropout kid can plumb a sink on the 2nd floor, a highly paid professional should be able to quickly put in a pool. Right?
Considering it's going to take days if not weeks for the cement in the substructure to set up properly, I highly doubt I'd want to be in a building constructed like this.
The other half of controlling Black Plague is nutrition. A big part of why it thrived was due to inadequate high-nutrition foods, resulting in diminished immune systems. (That's a part of your 'prevention' picture.)
Who? The people who have been indoctrinated by the farce of "animals are just people, too". It reduces their humanity while at the same time elevating their perception of vermin like rats and mice. Net result: absolutely no discernment.
This is what happens when you see more animals on a daily basis in pet food commercials than you have real animals in a lifetime (amongst other similar limited-life-experience perception inducers). Things like spouting out about the horrible evil of the US Government jackboot cleptogratic thuggery, while completely (and willfully) ignorant of how most of the rest of the world operates. (Sure, it ain't pretty, but it could be, and probably will be, a whole lot worse. Histronics only makes people ignore you and the case you need to present.)
would argue that the very fact that it IS illegal is why you get super strength pot now, same as during prohibition you were more likely to get bathtub rotgut than you were a nice light wine. When things are illegal it simply makes more sense to sell the most concentrated you can because the laws treat mellow and strong pot equally and a customer can get more for less by buying stronger stuff.
The only thing prohibition really does is change the quality of what's available, not so much the strength. There's 180 proof alcohol available today, and people buy it still. They mostly don't, because 180 proof can't be consumed straight, and if it could be, it wouldn't be pleasant in the least bit. There is, however, a good market for stuff in the 'non-distilled' range, just as there was back then. The reason people buy the non-distilled, 'weak' stuff is due to availability and convenience, primarily. If the quality of the 'low refined' stuff was roughly the same today as the 'highly refined' stuff, you can bet that people would be going for the higher refined goods. However, with alcohol there's the case that the stuff in the 10-20% range is typically "very good" and preferred by most: more flavor, more variety, and not distilled.
There are, of course, those of us who prefer drinking hard liquor straight. That is not the majority, however.
Look, I smoke cigarettes and cigars. I like them - both the feeling they give me and the oral act of smoking them. In particular, I like good tobacco. If tobacco was illegal tomorrow, I'd be pissed off, because it would still be available but much more expensive. A "dime bag" of tobacco would piss me off, because I know it probably wouldn't even be good leaf and would be exhorbinant. I wouldn't so much be purchasing the 'high potency' stuff because it's better, but simply because the low potency stuff isn't even worth bothering with (for one reason or another).
For the record, I go with an earlier poster in saying that pot smokers make the best arguement through their continued existence and embarassing behavior as to why pot should remain illegal. Even meth users seem to adapt better after long-term use to functioning within society than early-life pot smokers, from what I've seen. Why? Because once they've stopped geeking, they actually try to lead a successful life. They may relapse, and they may have a hard time of it, but they're trying. A modicum of effort is something most potheads lack, even after they've stopped. It does something to their brains which seems to short-circuit all the effort behind what's required to make their aspirations actually work. To compare, drunks usually have to hit a very low point before they're functioning as poorly as a pothead does on a daily basis.
Case in point: I believe "lacking the essential motivation to take responsibility for one's self and improve one's own situation" can be fairly well summed up by the behaviors of the indigenous people where hashish consumption is a common, almost universal pasttime.
I have a feeling once this dark and shameful chapter of our history is over and pot is legal you'll see that just like with alcohol you'll have so many choices in flavor, texture, and intoxication factor that just like with booze there will be something for everyone
That may be true, but my understanding is that pot already "comes" in many, many different varities and potencies. Some people don't like the 'high' they get from pot, however - regardless the strain. It isn't for everyone.
corrupt lottery.
But you repeat yourself.
The reality is closer to betting on horses. You've got your odds, which are as likely to be wrong as they are right. Some big money is involved, but usually it's just a series of small to medium wagers. Sometimes people make out big, sometimes they lose out big, but mostly it's just back and forth with a small select making out repeatedly due to knowing a guy, or being really good with numbers and subtle with their bets so the big guys don't catch on too quickly.
It should be, and probably would be, if using the GPU for general computing purposes as you would a CPU was possible yet. But it isn't, so it hardly matters.
I don't suppose it does much good mentioning at this point that the Pandaboard has what is at this point a fairly dated CPU with a fairly low clock. When it came out, it was decent, but at this point it's almost 2 years old. The Tegra 3, for instance, puts it to shame in pretty much every regard.
I don't know about that. Our house has a last-die Sandybridge i5 which runs circles around the E350 we also have. Power use is roughly par between the two.
My guess, is they may be using a different power supply. The pandaboard takes 5V @ 4 amp - hardly anything, really. A single quality 90% efficiency desktop PSU with 6 5V rails will supply that much power and, even if not operating at peak efficiency (low-amp high-efficiency PSUs are hard to find), it may have beat out the common wallwarts used for the devices.
Sandybridge, and now Ivybridge, are drastic hand over fist improvements over their previous architectual designs - particularly in terms of power use. An i5 at idle, for instance, is more power efficient than the first generation Atoms as well as the first-generation AMD Bobcat boards (eg. Hudson), but can do a whole lot more while not idled and still maintains a relatively low power usage.
I suspect that the reason we never saw the Atom SoC (Atom 2) was because the power savings engineering went into Sandy and Ivy. For what Atom does, it does it well enough - it hits that performance mark. If they can push the envelope on their high end, not only do their big customers save (datacenters, OEMs, etc.) but they're always able to later come back and scale and pair those high-end designs down for embedded use later.
This is exactly what California power companies (well, PG&E) does. They "artificially" set power availability low, and as a result, you're paying over $0.50/kwh during much of the winter months due to heating - despite the fact that you're really not using all that much power to begin with.
Besides, with a dynamic IP any change to it will take your website offline until DNS catches up.
That may be true, but my ISP hasn't changed my home IP in the past 4 years. The only times I've had IP changes is when I've either moved or had a service level/type change, with multiple providers. With mail being able to be down for up to 3 days or so before things start to bounce, it's not really a problem. Generally, if the ISP isn't blocking it, it's considered good to go, despite any ISP documentation. (If you're causing security problems, that's another matter.)
Yep. Exactly.
This could simply be caused by the explosive deer population growth over the past decade (in most of the US). Deer are now one of the biggest vectors for disease in the US - lime disease, west nile, and many other things which ticks, fleas, and mites carry. People have even hypothesized that deer are partially responsible for the migration of bedbugs westward, from the Northeast regions.
Deer and other game do compete for food, and due to deer population numbers, they will push out the other species through starvation. Ticks, fleas, etc. don't really help matters.
Deer populations throughout the US need to be seriously curbed. In some parts of the country, it's so bad that they've had several mass die offs during a bad acorn winter where you could walk through the woods and find emaciated carcasses.
While I do not deny that the Alps glaciers, the polar and anpolar ice caps, etc. melting, I have to wonder a couple things
* Is there regional cooling occurring somewhere at a similar rate, just not as evident because there are no newly formed glaciers yet?
* Might it be related to global climate shifting, more so than just heating?
* Might the fact that the glaciers are shrinking result in the fact that there is less ice to cool the air, and thus the amount of cooling those giant ice cubes have aided in the global scheme of things be diminished somewhat exponentially, in the same way as a bunch of small ice cubes is nowhere near as effective as a large one of the same volume at maintaining temperature?
Don't look at me, I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm just thinking out loud.
And, actually, enforcing a "veggie-only" law and outlawing meat for everyone would actually do more, be cheaper and be accepted just as much (i.e. virtually zero).
It would? On what basis? There is no evidence of this aside from fancy little fliers pushed out by NGOs like PETA on the basis of animal cruelty.
People who make this claim are, in my opinion, not really thinking much at all.
* Without meat, you will have no source of the necessary fats for proper muscle and brain functionality. They barely exist anywhere else, and where they do exist, it's in places like $12/lb nuts - and they're only that cheap due to near-slave labor.
* Meat, in most cases, means beef. Beef, which comes from cows and is primarily raised in locations throughout the world where no crops can be reasonably grown fruitfully for a number of reasons: low soil nutrient density, short day cycles, short growing seasons, low moisture levels, and so on. Believe it or not, the amount of petrolium needed (fertilizer, pesticide, fuel) to make these lands viable ceased being viable even at the OPEC debacle.
* Most of these "meat is bad, mkay" claims are based on preposterous assumptions like: a cow eats nothing but corn for it's entire life. In truth, most cattle do not eat much grain in their lives at all.
* There are very few crops which can even be effectively grown industrially. Basically, if you want to grow things for teh whole planet, you're looking at soy and grains and a handful of seasonal food, like cranberries. It's either that or you have to give up your cities within a generation due to the plagues brought on by malnutrition and the need to get into the countryside on a regular basis to harvest and care for the food.
Let's also just ignore the fact that ready access to meat is, by some estimates, the biggest distinguishing factor behind why while Europe was floundering economically, the US was growing in leaps and bounds economically - in innovation and advancement.
As for solutions, we only have a couple, and they're roughly the same as what we've been faced with throughout history when there are population pressures (whether they're caused by food, war, or some other thing):
* stop breeding
* start killing
One is more immediate and shows much greater results. They're also not mutually exclusive options. Breeding reduction can help, but it very much has to be 'fixed' at the local cultural level and can NOT occur within anything so short as a century, or you will have the same starvation/genocide issue due to imbalanced worker numbers.
In any case, your half-lip advice of burning all the oil now is stupid and not going to help any situation. When building a sustainable society with limited resources, the first key is to have enough resources to sustain yourself NOW and worry about the long-term implications later. That's where we are as a society now, though we're looking for better energy sources and effficiency of what we use today instead of eliminating things and going back to a neolithic lifestyle. Burning all the oil would, in short, just send us back to the dark ages. Even the ancient societies burned petroleum for lighting and heat.
Yes - as I said, it is fortunate that in some countries research which contradicts the prevailing view of the government and it's financial 'contributors' (such as the Heartland Institute) is allowed to continue, at least outside of North Carolina. In Australia such intellectual honesty is not permitted - governments threaten errant scientists with a loss of funding, while denialists openly threaten their lives and the lives of their families.
It might surprise you to find out, then, that this isn't the case at all.
In the US, the biggest long-running political contributors in the country have been Unions. Unions, as well as climate change, are the bastion of the political Left in the US. These institutions are the producers of every single 'legal' field in the US, from which all politicans tend to come from. They feed the beast of growth known as bureaucracy much more than the Right by perpetuating their own existence - much in the same way a corporation does through business schools. Academia supports both unions and labors at the ideological level, and (now) both are funded largely by government money. Government money which is metered out largely at the digression of bureaucrats. The government -> academia -> sciences -> government loop is much more complete than the "big business" silliness you envision.
This isn't to say that the political Right, of cronyism and capitalization, is better or preferable. In the US, the Left and the Right aren't enemies. They're like ticks and fleas on the back of a dog: they're both trying to suck the life out of the damned dog.
If you don't believe these environmentalism studies are highly motivated by political agendas and back-room agreements, you've got very little coming to you. You're not dealing with real science in many cases here, you're dealing with observational sciences which have the presumption to think their adequacy to be greater than it is - by predicting the future. It's interesting, to be sure, and should be considered while assessing how we proceed as a culture, but it's by no means accurate.
If it were even remotely accurate, we'd have died of starvation, drought, an ice age or two, and insufficient arable lands by now, at least once for each. Each of the prevailing political "Earth Day" agendas seem to be in conflict of the ones from 10 years prior, and each time there is someone making massive, massive money on it. When you consider the basis on which primary claims have been made at the time (eg. CFCs), and how despite a massive reversal in their use, the things theorized as "things which must be done, OR ELSE" had absolutely zero impact on the outcomes. The outcomes of these studies are so inaccurate, they'd be better off just flipping a coin.
I'm sorry, but what would've been wrong with "please upgrade your browser, it's ancient and insecure" like used to be done? Maintaining compatibility at all is perpetuating its use.