Yep. Independent verification that your vote is valid and was counted.
In terms of voting and counting votes it isn'y as complicated as it sounds.
1) Vote on a computer. 2) Computer prints receipt. 3) Select top or bottom from the computer screen. 4) Computer prints validation code. 5) Take receipt. 6) Give half that says "Give to poll personel" to poll personel for shredding. 7) Encrypted voting data transferred to counting location where keys are used to decrypt and count results. 8) Celebrate your candidate winning.
The complicated stuff comes in withthe verification that your vote is valid and counted. That is the posting of the image of your receipt on the website. If it is identical to the part you kept your vote was counted correctly, if it was not, your vote was not counted.
Third parties can verify your vote was valid as you exit by checking the digital signature. So, a hacked polling place can be identified as well.
I may miss some subtleties by simplifying, but while the implimentation seesm comlicated, the practice is a lot less complicated.
In thinking about it, the computer could still tally votes as each voter removes their receipt. You then still post the receipt images on the web, but only perform the full recount of the encrypted data if there is a complaint.
The feature size is independant of the fab tooling. AMD will implement the smallest affordable feature size at the time the fab comes on line and most likely will be running two feature sizes. Depending on who is making their chips in two years (probably IBM) they will most likely use the same masks and try to get matching silicon up to production levels.
This does not sem to be entirely true. Because there appears to be a point at which it is less costly to just build a new plant, than to refit an old plant with new equipment for smaller feature sizes. I am more familiar with back end equipment than front-end equipment, so I can't say for sure. But, I would think the switch from Austin to Dresden where the wafer sizes are identical, but it does not appear that they have put 130nm equipment in Austin, is an example of this choice.
See my earlier post. US companies are not for the most part moving FABs to Asia. Mostly packaging and final test. I go through the reasons for it, but it basically boils down to packaged processors are about 10x as bulky as the die on a wafer. Therefore, it takes about 10x the labor just to move them to and from the package line or test equipment.
As for packaging...you would think that would be fairly automated as well. (Could you eyeball the correct positioning of an Opteron die such that all 940 contacts, all of which are shoehorned into an area on the order of 100 mm^2, would line up properly?) Why they send out for packaging is beyond me, especially since you'd think that shipping costs would eat up a fair chunk of whatever they're saving.
Actually, shipping wafers probably doesn't cost much per die because you get around 100-200 chips per wafer which meand you can ship a thousand or so chips in a 1 foot by 1 foot box. Given bulk shipping costs of hundreds of wafers you are probably talking about pennies per die.
The reason packaging and final test is typically in Asia. Is because packaging and final test is much mor elabor intensive. Instead of a thousand or so chips in a 1' x 1' cube you end up with 100-200 in a 1' x 1' cube. So, every 100 or so chips have to be taken off the packaging or test equipment, and boxed or wrapped, so you could say that packaing and test is about 10x more labor intensive than wafer fab and test.
Oregon to be exact. They also have a couple plants in Ireland and in Isreal.
Don't forget Arizona and New Mexico.
Also, wafer fab is a very automated process. I have seen some Fab lines, and there are maybe 10 people inside the clean room where the lines are running. Then, there are another 10-20 people in wafer test. Then, maybe a few 10s of people in other locations doing other manufacturing or test processes. But, what you end up with is that you are probably talking about less than 100 people per shift that actually handle or in the case fo the Fab watch devices being made. It is possible I am over guessing, and maybe it is closer to 50 people per shift. The most of the other 800-900 people in a Fab are planners, repair techs, and process engineers. The process engineers though are the ones that make the company money. They are the ones who have to get the yields as high as possible. And, 1% of yield is worth a lot more than whatever salary you pay the process engineers.
Wouldn't it be cheaper for them to put facilities that mass produce chips in countries where labor is cheap? Most Intel chips I've seen are marked "Made in Malaysia" or "Made in the Philippines."
Check out an AMD chip someday they also say "Made in Malaysia". The reason is that, is the location where the chips are packaged. Intel chips are packaged in the Phillipines and Malaysia as you have noted. AMD's microprocessor Fab is in Dresden, but packaging is in Malaysia, and Final Test is in Singapore. AMD has previously made microprocessors in Austin Texas, and before that in San Jose, California. Intel has Fabs all over the world including the US, Europe and Asia, and packaging in at least the two places you have described. Intel isn't as forthcoming on their website about what their sites do.
decades ? look back to your periodic table. Uranium 235 has a half-life of 700 millions years. For a ton of it today, there will still be half a ton of it in 700 million years. Worst, uranium passes throught a lot of stages in it's decaying before becomming stable lead including a gas stage ( radon ) which makes it very difficult to contain.
Yep. U235 decays to Radon 219 which has a half life of 4 seconds, that is easy to contain since it decays to a solid before is can get anywhere. The Radon you are worried about is Radon 222 with a half life of 3.8 days, which is long enough for it to percolate up through the ground. And, concentrate in your hourse before it decays. But, it is also part of the decay chain for U238 not U235. And, U238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years.
The point though is that Uranium decay chains are not the problem. Spent fuel should be mostly U238 and whatever else was mixed in the fuel. At 4.5 billion year half-life U238 it takes a lot of U238 to be harmful. The scary waste products are the moderate half-life products that have half-lives in the decade to about 1000 years. Small amounts of these emit enough radiation to be harmful, but don't decay fast enough to be rendered safe in a short time.
I'd prefer a system without the concept of money with people working because of the intellectual challenges, not because of the money, but I don't see a workable implementation of such a system in the near future, the problem is there will always be people too lazy to work if they won't get paid. What needs to be done is that technology has to advance to such a stadium that working is optional, everything should be automated except for the fun stuff (like inventing new things).
The problem is that your la-la land has a prerequisite of near infinite resources. For the current population of this planet it would probably require harnessing the energy and raw materials of the entire solar system. And, transport the energy and raw materials efficiently. At which time we could fufill all the needs and a significant amount of the wants of most people at which point money becomes irrelevant. Money in itself is a pretty handy way of storing value in order to trade goods and services. The problem is that money has become and end in itself, and in many cases those who work the least seem to get the most.
Privately managed forests do not get caught on fire-- what lumber company wants to loose their assets. They manage them well, and they have been doing so for at least a century.
A privately managed forest is an oxymoron. It is a wood farm, pure and simple. This is not a bad thing either. A far seeing lumber company with a a**load of land should be able to sustainably farm even old growth trees. The only problem is the payoff will occur in some one else's lifetime. And, how many lumber executives are selfless enough to try to create a system of wood farming that takes centuries until a tree can be harvested?
Its this "public" land that is mismanaged, mostly due to erronous environmental concerns.
Correct. Because it has been managed for the last 100 years. Your proposal is that after mismanaging one way, we turn around and mismanage a different way. Yes, environmental concerns have resulted in mismanagement due to the past 100 years of squashing fires as quickly as possible. We never should have tried to manage natural forests in the first place. Fires are a requirement for the development of natural forests, any so called management results in a park not a forest.
Ah, but being the best team is not the point, now is it? The point of a commercial sports team, as for any other commercial enterprise, is to generate income. The goal is _not_ to win - it is to sell seats and advertisements (directly, and through media deals). If the income from being a somewhat worse team with the guy is higher than being a better team without him, well, then having him is a good idea.
Which is why I included the realtive attendance figures. The Rangers also have the lowest attendance of the 3 teams, and while that does not include the TV deal, baseball TV deals are negotiated locally by each team. If you can't get the people in the ballpark, you probably can't get them on the TV, and therefore, the TV deal won't be as sweet.
The same applies to musicians and athletes. If Alex Rodriguez generates $20 million in ticket sales every year (by simply just being there or by improving the performance of the Texas Rangers as whole, which generally leads to higher attendance rates, better television deals, and an increase in merchandise revenues), he's worth $20 million
The only problem is ARod probably makes the Ranger's a worse team. Actually, it is more like paying ARod such a large portion of the teams salary budget prevents them from having a more complete team. You could get at least 4 decent player's for ARod's salary. The American League West is a classic example of how money alone doesn't buy a championship.
2003 Salaries: 1) Texas Rangers $103 million 2) Seattle MAriners $87 million 3) Anaheim Angels $79 million 4) Oakland A's $50 million
As for attendance, Oakland had slightly higher attendance than the Rangers. While Seattle and Anaheim had much higher attendance than both Oakland and Seattle.
So far, LA has resisted this in the case of football. The NFL keeps trying to railroad the city or county to put up money for a stadium. Weirdly, they seem to put more weight into public money for a stadium vs a multiple billionaire owners group willing to build a stadium. I think eventually the NFL will put a team in LA, they can't ignore the 2nd largest TV market, but they won't do it with public money unless somehow the politicians figure out a way to do it without an election.
People will pay whatever they think you're worth. Athletes get such high salaries because they bring in so much money for the owners.
If you read the article, they specifically said "Washed up Pro athletes in long term contracts", the implication being these are the althletes that have a good year or two, get the long term contract, then forget how to play, but keep getting paid 10 million a year. Losing athletes don't bring money in for the owners. The examples they present show this.
NBA player Shawn Kemp, for instance, earned $10 million in a year he averaged a pathetic 6.1 points and 3.8 rebounds a game. Atlanta Braves pitcher Mike Hampton earned $9.5 million -- in the second year of an eight-year, $121 million contract -- while compiling a 7-15 won-loss record for the Colorado Rockies with a pitiful earned-run average of 6.15.
If they were just harping on professional athletes being overpaid in general, the examples would have been ARod and Shaq. In which case your criticism of the choice would have been correct.
There was a huge uproar in New England over the idea of having wind farms offshore.
Yep, by the wealthy environmentalist crowd. The biggest bunch of hypocrits I have seens. "Renewable energy is good, but not anywhere I can look at it."
I dearly love trees and it pains me to cut down a healthy tree, but I also grok cutting out diseased and overcrowded members to save the health and lives of the majority. And I hie from logging country, so I know how it works when its done well.
Actually, the problem is that we spent most of a century squashing fires too quickly, so now we have to deal with brush/tree/detritus choked forests and scrub land, that used to be cleared regularly by fire. A potential alternative as you have presented is attempting to manmade management. The only problem is the entire ecosystem evolved with regular fires, no one can predict what human management will result in.
And I hie from logging country, so I know how it works when its done well.
Really, do you have a couple centuries worth of data to back that up? Or, are you going to find out that our method of cutting down the diseased and overcrowded has unintended consequences?
My opinion is if it ain't broke don't fix it. The forests have dealt with fires for millions of years. We made one mistake by deciding that fires were bad, and squelching them. You are suggesting we try again to fix the natural system by cutting out brush and trees we think are bad. Maybe instead we should figure out how to get things back where nature can take care of itself, while at the same time protecting our lives and property?
This paper suggests that there is no evidence that climate change is human CO2 production.
Actually, no paper that I have heard of (yes a limited sample size), has shown that climate change is caused by human CO2 production. There have been quite a few showing correlation, including this one that is critical that humans cause climate change.
All this paper has shown is that the planet has seen a similar climate in the past. Primarily in the 15th century. But, the graphs in the paper also show a lower average temperature than currently in the succeeding centuries. There is still a rise in 20th century temperatures compared to the few previous centuries. So, there is still some correlation of a rise in temperature to the 20th century.
The question that needs to be answered is causation. Do we see a correlated rise in atmospheric CO2? Can we correlate that rise with human CO2 release? What are the natural mechanisms for CO2 release? Can we account for those? What are the mechanisms for CO2 absorption? What timescale do they work on?
With that information then we can make an educated and accurate plan to deal with the situation. But, there is the question of can we wait for all the answers? The global warming naysayers latch onto the fact that we don't have all the answers, and say there is no problem. The enviromentalists latch onto what few answers we have and claim there is a huge problem. My thinking is we should try to do something to mitigate the impact because the worst case scenario if we get sufficient evidence too late is extinction.
I don't know if Kyoto is the right answer, but trying to level off net human emissions is probably a good idea. At a minimum it would hopefully give long term planetary feedback mechanisms a chance to kick in.
Your body needs a certain number of calories per day to operate. An average for a male office worker is supposed to be about 2000 per day. If you eat less (say, 1200), there is no way your body can possibly store any of that, because it needs to be used to keep you alive.
I am not an expert, but the body is surprisingly adaptable. Your metabolism will attempt adjust to burning 1200 calories. Especially without exercise. Your body will try to adjust its calorie burn rate as close to 1200 calories as possible. You will be more tired, and will especially run into to problems if you take that 1200 calories in say 2 600 calorie meals, due to the wide change in blood sugar.
Aerobic exercise is critical. It will help keep your metabolism at a higher level. And, spreading out the calories in order to prevent massive changes in blood sugar will help also.
And, my personal experience was with going to 1600 calories a day. With 3 - 3000yd swim workouts a week. I dropped about 2.5lbs a week for about 4 weeks before deciding that was a little fast. I increased my calories to about 1900 which slowed things down to about 1.5 lbs/week. And lost about 20 lbs using that method.
Look at Latin America and South America for examples of democracies that don't work because power is distributed so unevenly. Uneven power distribution can mean a large lack of oppurtunity, making capitalism and free markets ineffective.
I woud put this as the reason a strong and significant "middle" class is required for capitalism to work. If you don't have a middle class who is going to buy the goods and services. Money has to change hand for an economy to work. If you only have the rich and the poor, what you end up with is the rich paying the poor really small amounts of money, and the poor just giving that money right back to the rich, who then keep a portion and pay some back to the poor as wages. This process will halt very quickly. A healthy economy has lots of people getting paid significant wages that get used to purchase goods and services from many different levels of producers who reuse much of that to pay more wages that continue to be used to purchase goods and services. The problem is that in the pursuit of money the rich seem to forget that, and force wages down reducing the middle class. In a sense capitalists shoot themselves in the foot when they exploit workers because the workers are ulitmately there customers. And, if the customers cannot buy their products the company stops making money. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to see how this can lead to a nearly unstoppable death spiral.
Let's see a successful practical application of communism. I invite you to cite examples.
It is interesting that GPL software keeps being cited as communist rather than what it truly is... enlightened self interest, which could be translated to capitalism. Allow me to expound. The GPL is a market where I write code that helps me, and deliver it to others in exchange for any code they write to improve my code. The "I" and "others" above can be translated to IBM, Red Hat, Linus, Alan...
GPL software is really a barter system where the unit of exchange is code, testing, bug reports... This is why it messes up money focused capitalists, they assume if money is not exchange it isn't capitalism. A point that should be made is that barter unless there are sufficient people willing to trade in that currency. This would suggest that certain kinds of specialized software where a critical mass of contributors cannot be reached should continue to use the proprietary model where money is exchanged for labor.
Why has nobody thought of this before? Would this reall work?
Big article on this in Scientific American many years ago, in opposition to the Nevada waste site. Again the greatest danger is in transportation, but once entombed there is really no way for the material to harm anyone. You put a core dirlling ship in the ocean and dril a hole 2-3 kilometers into the ocean floor. You then drop barrels of waste into the hole separated by a few meters of the sediment. Even if the conatiners were to breach the material would at most disperse a few meters into the surrounding sediment over thousands of years. There is no worry of ground water contamination or even human contaimination once entombed, and eventually the material ends up melted into the mantle.
But, there is the threat of an accident during transportation, which is a worry for any nuclear waste disposal method.
"In God We Trust" was added under the same contexts that "under God" was. Both phrases specifically denote the Christian god, and don't delude yourself into thinking that "God can mean anything anyone can want it to mean." It can't, legally, because I can't make a new religion based on worshiping my penis and expect the government to give me tax exempt status. Furthermore, no other religion refers to its deity as just "God" with a capital "G." Jews refer to Yahweh, and Muslims refer to Allah. Not only does it discriminate against atheists, it discriminates against religions which do not worship deities, like certain sects of Buddhism.
An interesting comparison come up between "In God We Trust" and "under God". If you take a strict literal interpretation fo the Constitution "In God We Trust" is OK because it was put on the dollar by some one designing it, and as far as I know, there is no law requiring that on currency.
On the other hand "under God" was added as an Act of Congress. Which is pretty much as close as you can get to violating "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
I think some spammers have been infected with that Microsoft Security Update e-mail virus. I keep finding 2-10 142K e-mails in my Yahoo Bulk Mail folder for that virus daily. This has only been occuring over the last couple weeks.
2) RedHat can subpoena the entire Sys V source code to show that any matches can be attributed to BSD or textbooks.
I think ultimately this has to be Red Hat's primary goal. By bringing a lawsuit they will be able to subpoena proof. They will probably have to sign some kind of NDA, but Red Hat will be able to contest overly onerous terms in the NDA with the judge.
Slashdot Mirror
probably because it ended exactly as I had predicted it would.
From the perspective fo Neo dying, I agree. He is the messiah, he had to die.
Am I missing anything?
Yep. Independent verification that your vote is valid and was counted.
In terms of voting and counting votes it isn'y as complicated as it sounds.
1) Vote on a computer.
2) Computer prints receipt.
3) Select top or bottom from the computer screen.
4) Computer prints validation code.
5) Take receipt.
6) Give half that says "Give to poll personel" to poll personel for shredding.
7) Encrypted voting data transferred to counting location where keys are used to decrypt and count results.
8) Celebrate your candidate winning.
The complicated stuff comes in withthe verification that your vote is valid and counted. That is the posting of the image of your receipt on the website. If it is identical to the part you kept your vote was counted correctly, if it was not, your vote was not counted.
Third parties can verify your vote was valid as you exit by checking the digital signature. So, a hacked polling place can be identified as well.
I may miss some subtleties by simplifying, but while the implimentation seesm comlicated, the practice is a lot less complicated.
In thinking about it, the computer could still tally votes as each voter removes their receipt. You then still post the receipt images on the web, but only perform the full recount of the encrypted data if there is a complaint.
The feature size is independant of the fab tooling. AMD will implement the smallest affordable feature size at the time the fab comes on line and most likely will be running two feature sizes. Depending on who is making their chips in two years (probably IBM) they will most likely use the same masks and try to get matching silicon up to production levels.
This does not sem to be entirely true. Because there appears to be a point at which it is less costly to just build a new plant, than to refit an old plant with new equipment for smaller feature sizes. I am more familiar with back end equipment than front-end equipment, so I can't say for sure.
But, I would think the switch from Austin to Dresden where the wafer sizes are identical, but it does not appear that they have put 130nm equipment in Austin, is an example of this choice.
See my earlier post. US companies are not for the most part moving FABs to Asia. Mostly packaging and final test. I go through the reasons for it, but it basically boils down to packaged processors are about 10x as bulky as the die on a wafer. Therefore, it takes about 10x the labor just to move them to and from the package line or test equipment.
As for packaging...you would think that would be fairly automated as well. (Could you eyeball the correct positioning of an Opteron die such that all 940 contacts, all of which are shoehorned into an area on the order of 100 mm^2, would line up properly?) Why they send out for packaging is beyond me, especially since you'd think that shipping costs would eat up a fair chunk of whatever they're saving.
Actually, shipping wafers probably doesn't cost much per die because you get around 100-200 chips per wafer which meand you can ship a thousand or so chips in a 1 foot by 1 foot box. Given bulk shipping costs of hundreds of wafers you are probably talking about pennies per die.
The reason packaging and final test is typically in Asia. Is because packaging and final test is much mor elabor intensive. Instead of a thousand or so chips in a 1' x 1' cube you end up with 100-200 in a 1' x 1' cube. So, every 100 or so chips have to be taken off the packaging or test equipment, and boxed or wrapped, so you could say that packaing and test is about 10x more labor intensive than wafer fab and test.
Oregon to be exact. They also have a couple plants in Ireland and in Isreal.
Don't forget Arizona and New Mexico.
Also, wafer fab is a very automated process. I have seen some Fab lines, and there are maybe 10 people inside the clean room where the lines are running. Then, there are another 10-20 people in wafer test. Then, maybe a few 10s of people in other locations doing other manufacturing or test processes. But, what you end up with is that you are probably talking about less than 100 people per shift that actually handle or in the case fo the Fab watch devices being made. It is possible I am over guessing, and maybe it is closer to 50 people per shift. The most of the other 800-900 people in a Fab are planners, repair techs, and process engineers. The process engineers though are the ones that make the company money. They are the ones who have to get the yields as high as possible. And, 1% of yield is worth a lot more than whatever salary you pay the process engineers.
Wouldn't it be cheaper for them to put facilities that mass produce chips in countries where labor is cheap? Most Intel chips I've seen are marked "Made in Malaysia" or "Made in the Philippines."
Check out an AMD chip someday they also say "Made in Malaysia". The reason is that, is the location where the chips are packaged. Intel chips are packaged in the Phillipines and Malaysia as you have noted. AMD's microprocessor Fab is in Dresden, but packaging is in Malaysia, and Final Test is in Singapore. AMD has previously made microprocessors in Austin Texas, and before that in San Jose, California. Intel has Fabs all over the world including the US, Europe and Asia, and packaging in at least the two places you have described. Intel isn't as forthcoming on their website about what their sites do.
decades ? look back to your periodic table. Uranium 235 has a half-life of 700 millions years. For a ton of it today, there will still be half a ton of it in 700 million years. Worst, uranium passes throught a lot of stages in it's decaying before becomming stable lead including a gas stage ( radon ) which makes it very difficult to contain.
Yep. U235 decays to Radon 219 which has a half life of 4 seconds, that is easy to contain since it decays to a solid before is can get anywhere. The Radon you are worried about is Radon 222 with a half life of 3.8 days, which is long enough for it to percolate up through the ground. And, concentrate in your hourse before it decays. But, it is also part of the decay chain for U238 not U235. And, U238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years.
The point though is that Uranium decay chains are not the problem. Spent fuel should be mostly U238 and whatever else was mixed in the fuel. At 4.5 billion year half-life U238 it takes a lot of U238 to be harmful. The scary waste products are the moderate half-life products that have half-lives in the decade to about 1000 years. Small amounts of these emit enough radiation to be harmful, but don't decay fast enough to be rendered safe in a short time.
I'd prefer a system without the concept of money with people working because of the intellectual challenges, not because of the money, but I don't see a workable implementation of such a system in the near future, the problem is there will always be people too lazy to work if they won't get paid.
What needs to be done is that technology has to advance to such a stadium that working is optional, everything should be automated except for the fun stuff (like inventing new things).
The problem is that your la-la land has a prerequisite of near infinite resources. For the current population of this planet it would probably require harnessing the energy and raw materials of the entire solar system. And, transport the energy and raw materials efficiently. At which time we could fufill all the needs and a significant amount of the wants of most people at which point money becomes irrelevant. Money in itself is a pretty handy way of storing value in order to trade goods and services. The problem is that money has become and end in itself, and in many cases those who work the least seem to get the most.
Privately managed forests do not get caught on fire-- what lumber company wants to loose their assets. They manage them well, and they have been doing so for at least a century.
A privately managed forest is an oxymoron. It is a wood farm, pure and simple. This is not a bad thing either. A far seeing lumber company with a a**load of land should be able to sustainably farm even old growth trees. The only problem is the payoff will occur in some one else's lifetime. And, how many lumber executives are selfless enough to try to create a system of wood farming that takes centuries until a tree can be harvested?
Its this "public" land that is mismanaged, mostly due to erronous environmental concerns.
Correct. Because it has been managed for the last 100 years. Your proposal is that after mismanaging one way, we turn around and mismanage a different way. Yes, environmental concerns have resulted in mismanagement due to the past 100 years of squashing fires as quickly as possible. We never should have tried to manage natural forests in the first place. Fires are a requirement for the development of natural forests, any so called management results in a park not a forest.
Ah, but being the best team is not the point, now is it? The point of a commercial sports team, as for any other commercial enterprise, is to generate income. The goal is _not_ to win - it is to sell seats and advertisements (directly, and through media deals). If the income from being a somewhat worse team with the guy is higher than being a better team without him, well, then having him is a good idea.
Which is why I included the realtive attendance figures. The Rangers also have the lowest attendance of the 3 teams, and while that does not include the TV deal, baseball TV deals are negotiated locally by each team. If you can't get the people in the ballpark, you probably can't get them on the TV, and therefore, the TV deal won't be as sweet.
The same applies to musicians and athletes. If Alex Rodriguez generates $20 million in ticket sales every year (by simply just being there or by improving the performance of the Texas Rangers as whole, which generally leads to higher attendance rates, better television deals, and an increase in merchandise revenues), he's worth $20 million
s /d efault.aspx
The only problem is ARod probably makes the Ranger's a worse team. Actually, it is more like paying ARod such a large portion of the teams salary budget prevents them from having a more complete team. You could get at least 4 decent player's for ARod's salary. The American League West is a classic example of how money alone doesn't buy a championship.
2003 Salaries:
1) Texas Rangers $103 million
2) Seattle MAriners $87 million
3) Anaheim Angels $79 million
4) Oakland A's $50 million
2003 Standings
1) Oakland 96-66
2) Seattle 93-69
3) Anaheim 77-85
4) Texas 71-91
http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salarie
As for attendance, Oakland had slightly higher attendance than the Rangers. While Seattle and Anaheim had much higher attendance than both Oakland and Seattle.
Taxpayers paying for stadiums for teams
So far, LA has resisted this in the case of football. The NFL keeps trying to railroad the city or county to put up money for a stadium. Weirdly, they seem to put more weight into public money for a stadium vs a multiple billionaire owners group willing to build a stadium. I think eventually the NFL will put a team in LA, they can't ignore the 2nd largest TV market, but they won't do it with public money unless somehow the politicians figure out a way to do it without an election.
People will pay whatever they think you're worth. Athletes get such high salaries because they bring in so much money for the owners.
If you read the article, they specifically said "Washed up Pro athletes in long term contracts", the implication being these are the althletes that have a good year or two, get the long term contract, then forget how to play, but keep getting paid 10 million a year. Losing athletes don't bring money in for the owners. The examples they present show this.
NBA player Shawn Kemp, for instance, earned $10 million in a year he averaged a pathetic 6.1 points and 3.8 rebounds a game. Atlanta Braves pitcher Mike Hampton earned $9.5 million -- in the second year of an eight-year, $121 million contract -- while compiling a 7-15 won-loss record for the Colorado Rockies with a pitiful earned-run average of 6.15.
If they were just harping on professional athletes being overpaid in general, the examples would have been ARod and Shaq. In which case your criticism of the choice would have been correct.
There was a huge uproar in New England over the idea of having wind farms offshore.
Yep, by the wealthy environmentalist crowd. The biggest bunch of hypocrits I have seens. "Renewable energy is good, but not anywhere I can look at it."
Here is what it woudl take to supply the entire US energy needs.
R es ource.htm
http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/7_12/The_Solar_
I dearly love trees and it pains me to cut down a healthy tree, but I also grok cutting out diseased and overcrowded members to save the health and lives of the majority. And I hie from logging country, so I know how it works when its done well.
Actually, the problem is that we spent most of a century squashing fires too quickly, so now we have to deal with brush/tree/detritus choked forests and scrub land, that used to be cleared regularly by fire. A potential alternative as you have presented is attempting to manmade management. The only problem is the entire ecosystem evolved with regular fires, no one can predict what human management will result in.
And I hie from logging country, so I know how it works when its done well.
Really, do you have a couple centuries worth of data to back that up? Or, are you going to find out that our method of cutting down the diseased and overcrowded has unintended consequences?
My opinion is if it ain't broke don't fix it. The forests have dealt with fires for millions of years. We made one mistake by deciding that fires were bad, and squelching them. You are suggesting we try again to fix the natural system by cutting out brush and trees we think are bad. Maybe instead we should figure out how to get things back where nature can take care of itself, while at the same time protecting our lives and property?
This paper suggests that there is no evidence that climate change is human CO2 production.
Actually, no paper that I have heard of (yes a limited sample size), has shown that climate change is caused by human CO2 production. There have been quite a few showing correlation, including this one that is critical that humans cause climate change.
All this paper has shown is that the planet has seen a similar climate in the past. Primarily in the 15th century. But, the graphs in the paper also show a lower average temperature than currently in the succeeding centuries. There is still a rise in 20th century temperatures compared to the few previous centuries. So, there is still some correlation of a rise in temperature to the 20th century.
The question that needs to be answered is causation. Do we see a correlated rise in atmospheric CO2? Can we correlate that rise with human CO2 release? What are the natural mechanisms for CO2 release? Can we account for those? What are the mechanisms for CO2 absorption? What timescale do they work on?
With that information then we can make an educated and accurate plan to deal with the situation. But, there is the question of can we wait for all the answers? The global warming naysayers latch onto the fact that we don't have all the answers, and say there is no problem. The enviromentalists latch onto what few answers we have and claim there is a huge problem. My thinking is we should try to do something to mitigate the impact because the worst case scenario if we get sufficient evidence too late is extinction.
I don't know if Kyoto is the right answer, but trying to level off net human emissions is probably a good idea. At a minimum it would hopefully give long term planetary feedback mechanisms a chance to kick in.
Your body needs a certain number of calories per day to operate. An average for a male office worker is supposed to be about 2000 per day. If you eat less (say, 1200), there is no way your body can possibly store any of that, because it needs to be used to keep you alive.
I am not an expert, but the body is surprisingly adaptable. Your metabolism will attempt adjust to burning 1200 calories. Especially without exercise. Your body will try to adjust its calorie burn rate as close to 1200 calories as possible. You will be more tired, and will especially run into to problems if you take that 1200 calories in say 2 600 calorie meals, due to the wide change in blood sugar.
Aerobic exercise is critical. It will help keep your metabolism at a higher level. And, spreading out the calories in order to prevent massive changes in blood sugar will help also.
And, my personal experience was with going to 1600 calories a day. With 3 - 3000yd swim workouts a week. I dropped about 2.5lbs a week for about 4 weeks before deciding that was a little fast. I increased my calories to about 1900 which slowed things down to about 1.5 lbs/week. And lost about 20 lbs using that method.
Look at Latin America and South America for examples of democracies that don't work because power is distributed so unevenly. Uneven power distribution can mean a large lack of oppurtunity, making capitalism and free markets ineffective.
I woud put this as the reason a strong and significant "middle" class is required for capitalism to work. If you don't have a middle class who is going to buy the goods and services. Money has to change hand for an economy to work. If you only have the rich and the poor, what you end up with is the rich paying the poor really small amounts of money, and the poor just giving that money right back to the rich, who then keep a portion and pay some back to the poor as wages. This process will halt very quickly. A healthy economy has lots of people getting paid significant wages that get used to purchase goods and services from many different levels of producers who reuse much of that to pay more wages that continue to be used to purchase goods and services. The problem is that in the pursuit of money the rich seem to forget that, and force wages down reducing the middle class. In a sense capitalists shoot themselves in the foot when they exploit workers because the workers are ulitmately there customers. And, if the customers cannot buy their products the company stops making money. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to see how this can lead to a nearly unstoppable death spiral.
Let's see a successful practical application of communism. I invite you to cite examples.
It is interesting that GPL software keeps being cited as communist rather than what it truly is... enlightened self interest, which could be translated to capitalism. Allow me to expound. The GPL is a market where I write code that helps me, and deliver it to others in exchange for any code they write to improve my code. The "I" and "others" above can be translated to IBM, Red Hat, Linus, Alan...
GPL software is really a barter system where the unit of exchange is code, testing, bug reports... This is why it messes up money focused capitalists, they assume if money is not exchange it isn't capitalism. A point that should be made is that barter unless there are sufficient people willing to trade in that currency. This would suggest that certain kinds of specialized software where a critical mass of contributors cannot be reached should continue to use the proprietary model where money is exchanged for labor.
Why has nobody thought of this before? Would this reall work?
Big article on this in Scientific American many years ago, in opposition to the Nevada waste site. Again the greatest danger is in transportation, but once entombed there is really no way for the material to harm anyone. You put a core dirlling ship in the ocean and dril a hole 2-3 kilometers into the ocean floor. You then drop barrels of waste into the hole separated by a few meters of the sediment. Even if the conatiners were to breach the material would at most disperse a few meters into the surrounding sediment over thousands of years. There is no worry of ground water contamination or even human contaimination once entombed, and eventually the material ends up melted into the mantle.
But, there is the threat of an accident during transportation, which is a worry for any nuclear waste disposal method.
"In God We Trust" was added under the same contexts that "under God" was. Both phrases specifically denote the Christian god, and don't delude yourself into thinking that "God can mean anything anyone can want it to mean." It can't, legally, because I can't make a new religion based on worshiping my penis and expect the government to give me tax exempt status. Furthermore, no other religion refers to its deity as just "God" with a capital "G." Jews refer to Yahweh, and Muslims refer to Allah. Not only does it discriminate against atheists, it discriminates against religions which do not worship deities, like certain sects of Buddhism.
An interesting comparison come up between "In God We Trust" and "under God". If you take a strict literal interpretation fo the Constitution "In God We Trust" is OK because it was put on the dollar by some one designing it, and as far as I know, there is no law requiring that on currency.
On the other hand "under God" was added as an Act of Congress. Which is pretty much as close as you can get to violating "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
I think some spammers have been infected with that Microsoft Security Update e-mail virus. I keep finding 2-10 142K e-mails in my Yahoo Bulk Mail folder for that virus daily. This has only been occuring over the last couple weeks.
Has anyone else noticed that?
Dastardly
2) RedHat can subpoena the entire Sys V source code to show that any matches can be attributed to BSD or textbooks.
I think ultimately this has to be Red Hat's primary goal. By bringing a lawsuit they will be able to subpoena proof. They will probably have to sign some kind of NDA, but Red Hat will be able to contest overly onerous terms in the NDA with the judge.
IANAL
Dastardly