Given the situation Bing is in, even a 1% search share increase for a $100 million cost is nothing. Firefox has 500 million users and maybe 20% of them won't change the default from Bing.
No, it doesn't work that way. Only new users will see the new default of Bing. Anyone with an existing Firefox installation should have their search engine unchanged upon upgrade. Any other choice would be an absolute catastrophe on the part of Mozilla, on par with Microsoft's attempts to switch the default browser back in the early browser wars. If Mozilla touches my default setup at all they are dead to me.
I don't know where they are going to get their money, but if they have to resort to scummy tactics to do so then they deserve to go broke. Maybe they could go back to donations, but then they'd have to maybe listen to their users so I doubt it.
When you see a terrible, unrealistic special effect, it snaps you out of that "zone."
Far too often, though, that is exactly what you get if you watch a CGI-filled movie that's more than a year old. Meanwhile model-based special effects can last significantly longer.
Maybe this is a passing thing and eventually CGI will be good enough to last forever. But it certainly isn't yet. CGI things still shimmer wrong.
Yes but by the time they'd implemented this, they'd already changed up the API and cranked browser versions several times, broken a lot of things, and scared off the developers.
If they'd done that first, before they changed their numbering strategy, they might not have broken so many things.
I think if we could better judge the cost of placing something into a landfill, the relative cost of recycling would be lower. Maybe that will take time in the U.S. In countries like Japan that are very desperate for space (and incinerate all their garbage), I think recycling is already cheaper.
Our HOA prevents us from composting on our property. Fortunately after 10 years of saving we're soon able to move somewhere where we can choose to compost if we wish, but of course someone else will be moving into our old house and faced with the same limitation.
New Orleans is barely able to keep trash from floating through the streets. I'm much less familiar with Atlanta. Austin at least (and I think, most other liberal cities) make it much easier to find recycling, with recycling bins more common than trash bins around town.
Wrap your hand in skin-tight clothing, then pour some more coffee on your hand. Make sure you're strapped in so that you can't take the cloth off for 30 seconds. Also, don't use your hand - the skin there is tougher. Use your genitals. Then compare photos.
>> Eventually, with enough rolls of the dice, you will get something in your favor.
Or you don't, and then you die in obscurity and no one remembers you to cite you in Slashdot arguments, thus skewing their perception of the statistics.
But they sands don't represent all of the environmental impact of those people. (To be fair, Manhattan doesn't either.) You need to take into account the condition of all of the land used to sustain each person. I argue that those living in a dense, urban environment generate less pollution and consume less land per person than those living in a suburban environment, even if urban environments do tend to have higher pollution and higher land impact per square foot than suburban environments.
The fact that compost material is valuable and the fact that you have to pay to have it hauled away aren't mutually exclusive. It could have value greater than zero but lower than its creation cost. Or it could have value if amassed but not enough value to be worth collecting from a distributed suburban environment, so you are merely paying for the collection cost.
Or it simply costs money for you to dispose of it because the free market knows they can charge you for it. (Or charge the city for it on the negotiated contract, etc.) The alternative would be for you to toss it in your backyard, which is free except for the time and expense to manage it into compost, or is free until you sued if the results non-composted results smell or contaminate air or land or groundwater you don't own. In other words, there may be no "free" way to dispose of the materials, so every company and every city knows it can charge you *something* regardless of the value of the end product.
Most of the things we get these days use starch peanuts. I dispose of them by dumping them into the tub just before I take a shower, then letting the water rinse them away. It works okay as long as I wash my feet last to get rid of the sludge.
I'd spread them on the lawn instead if A) I knew they wouldn't kill the grass, and B) it ever rained here.
The few styrofoam peanuts I still get go into a bag in the closet, and I use them for when I ship things myself.
Right from the text, that says that the States can make composting mandatory, since the Constitution doesn't prohibit them from doing so. Likewise states can choose to let cities make it mandatory if they wish, or prevent them from doing so as they see fit.
I take it you spend more time tossing about the tenth amendment than actually reading it.
Some asshole dumped a rear-projection TV near the park in our neighborhood. I stumbled upon it when I was walking at night and saw/heard the broken glass everyone. On Halloween night. With kids out.
You have single-stream recycling. My city moved to it about a year ago, and we, too, can just put everything in one big bin. They increased what can be recycled at the same time, so it now includes all plastics 1-7 as well. (Maybe they sort the 1-6 out and throw 7 away at the recycling center, but say they'll take it all to increase collection rates? I dunno; it's probably buried in the contract somewhere.)
A lot of places in the U.S. don't have single-stream recycling yet, so residents have to sort out individual things, which are then loaded at their house into different bins on a truck. That truck usually only have bins for 4-5 things at most, so that's all they can recycle.
It depends on the city. Remember that we don't have national laws about stuff like this, and there are conservatives everywhere that define "conservation" as "keeping my money in my wallet". Where specifically did you visit?
I bet the contracts now stipulate that the materials be recycled, probably on UK soil providing local jobs. Yay for government and the press working together to find and solve a problem!
Every community built in the last 20 years in my city has an HOA.* All of them restrict composting. And, were the city not negotiating a bulk-rate for trash collection on our behalf (from a private service provider), I suspect that every HOA would do the same and mandate that its residents use it (at a higher rate since each one wouldn't be as strong in negotiation).
In the absence of government, private industry does a plenty good job stepping in with regulation. And costs don't really go down.
* And the older ones all cost prohibitively more due to location.
Just curious, where did you get your medical degree? Because clearly your internet opinion is better than those of the emergency room doctors that saw her just after she burned herself with the coffee.
Also, where did you get your statistics degree? I'm curious since your analysis of coffee serving temperature isn't backed up with a reference to a study, so I assume you completed the study yourself.
Oh, and where did you get your law degree? Since you don't think any of the arguments make sense, I assume you've read the reports that McDonald's had received 700 previous complaints about the coffee being too hot, making the claim that "He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature" seem less like an accident and more like negligence.
Not in terms of environmental hazard per human served.
We're doing okay as a planet if we stuff several million people into 100 square kilometers, if it meant that large swaths of the planet could then be left in a natural or "recharge" state. Suburban life has far more of an impact on the planet.
The real secret to success is having the drive and motivation, along with huge piles of luck.
Every business, every restaurant, every person has good and bad days/products/etc. Some people get really lucky on their good days and get noticed, and then proceed to have good days when it counts. Others who may be equally or more "deserving" (whatever that means) don't.
Certainly those that never try won't succeed. But those that try and succeed aren't better or more deserving than those who failed - they just got lucky.
Slashdot Mirror
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=HOA
Given the situation Bing is in, even a 1% search share increase for a $100 million cost is nothing. Firefox has 500 million users and maybe 20% of them won't change the default from Bing.
No, it doesn't work that way. Only new users will see the new default of Bing. Anyone with an existing Firefox installation should have their search engine unchanged upon upgrade. Any other choice would be an absolute catastrophe on the part of Mozilla, on par with Microsoft's attempts to switch the default browser back in the early browser wars. If Mozilla touches my default setup at all they are dead to me.
I don't know where they are going to get their money, but if they have to resort to scummy tactics to do so then they deserve to go broke. Maybe they could go back to donations, but then they'd have to maybe listen to their users so I doubt it.
When you see a terrible, unrealistic special effect, it snaps you out of that "zone."
Far too often, though, that is exactly what you get if you watch a CGI-filled movie that's more than a year old. Meanwhile model-based special effects can last significantly longer.
Maybe this is a passing thing and eventually CGI will be good enough to last forever. But it certainly isn't yet. CGI things still shimmer wrong.
Yes but by the time they'd implemented this, they'd already changed up the API and cranked browser versions several times, broken a lot of things, and scared off the developers.
If they'd done that first, before they changed their numbering strategy, they might not have broken so many things.
I think if we could better judge the cost of placing something into a landfill, the relative cost of recycling would be lower. Maybe that will take time in the U.S. In countries like Japan that are very desperate for space (and incinerate all their garbage), I think recycling is already cheaper.
Our HOA prevents us from composting on our property. Fortunately after 10 years of saving we're soon able to move somewhere where we can choose to compost if we wish, but of course someone else will be moving into our old house and faced with the same limitation.
New Orleans is barely able to keep trash from floating through the streets. I'm much less familiar with Atlanta. Austin at least (and I think, most other liberal cities) make it much easier to find recycling, with recycling bins more common than trash bins around town.
Wrap your hand in skin-tight clothing, then pour some more coffee on your hand. Make sure you're strapped in so that you can't take the cloth off for 30 seconds. Also, don't use your hand - the skin there is tougher. Use your genitals. Then compare photos.
>> Eventually, with enough rolls of the dice, you will get something in your favor.
Or you don't, and then you die in obscurity and no one remembers you to cite you in Slashdot arguments, thus skewing their perception of the statistics.
Being born rich falls into the "just" lucky category.
But they sands don't represent all of the environmental impact of those people. (To be fair, Manhattan doesn't either.) You need to take into account the condition of all of the land used to sustain each person. I argue that those living in a dense, urban environment generate less pollution and consume less land per person than those living in a suburban environment, even if urban environments do tend to have higher pollution and higher land impact per square foot than suburban environments.
The fact that compost material is valuable and the fact that you have to pay to have it hauled away aren't mutually exclusive. It could have value greater than zero but lower than its creation cost. Or it could have value if amassed but not enough value to be worth collecting from a distributed suburban environment, so you are merely paying for the collection cost.
Or it simply costs money for you to dispose of it because the free market knows they can charge you for it. (Or charge the city for it on the negotiated contract, etc.) The alternative would be for you to toss it in your backyard, which is free except for the time and expense to manage it into compost, or is free until you sued if the results non-composted results smell or contaminate air or land or groundwater you don't own. In other words, there may be no "free" way to dispose of the materials, so every company and every city knows it can charge you *something* regardless of the value of the end product.
Or maybe it's all of the above.
Most of the things we get these days use starch peanuts. I dispose of them by dumping them into the tub just before I take a shower, then letting the water rinse them away. It works okay as long as I wash my feet last to get rid of the sludge.
I'd spread them on the lawn instead if A) I knew they wouldn't kill the grass, and B) it ever rained here.
The few styrofoam peanuts I still get go into a bag in the closet, and I use them for when I ship things myself.
Right from the text, that says that the States can make composting mandatory, since the Constitution doesn't prohibit them from doing so. Likewise states can choose to let cities make it mandatory if they wish, or prevent them from doing so as they see fit.
I take it you spend more time tossing about the tenth amendment than actually reading it.
Some asshole dumped a rear-projection TV near the park in our neighborhood. I stumbled upon it when I was walking at night and saw/heard the broken glass everyone. On Halloween night. With kids out.
You have single-stream recycling. My city moved to it about a year ago, and we, too, can just put everything in one big bin. They increased what can be recycled at the same time, so it now includes all plastics 1-7 as well. (Maybe they sort the 1-6 out and throw 7 away at the recycling center, but say they'll take it all to increase collection rates? I dunno; it's probably buried in the contract somewhere.)
A lot of places in the U.S. don't have single-stream recycling yet, so residents have to sort out individual things, which are then loaded at their house into different bins on a truck. That truck usually only have bins for 4-5 things at most, so that's all they can recycle.
Well, find and hire a company that will charge you more to pick up all your trash, unsorted. Problem solved via free market!
(Oh, wait, that company doesn't exist?)
It depends on the city. Remember that we don't have national laws about stuff like this, and there are conservatives everywhere that define "conservation" as "keeping my money in my wallet". Where specifically did you visit?
I bet the contracts now stipulate that the materials be recycled, probably on UK soil providing local jobs. Yay for government and the press working together to find and solve a problem!
Every community built in the last 20 years in my city has an HOA.* All of them restrict composting. And, were the city not negotiating a bulk-rate for trash collection on our behalf (from a private service provider), I suspect that every HOA would do the same and mandate that its residents use it (at a higher rate since each one wouldn't be as strong in negotiation).
In the absence of government, private industry does a plenty good job stepping in with regulation. And costs don't really go down.
* And the older ones all cost prohibitively more due to location.
It was given out in a contract, so you are already getting your wish.
Though I think we could save money by having the government do something itself instead of having to pay for Lockheed's profit and overhead.
Just curious, where did you get your medical degree? Because clearly your internet opinion is better than those of the emergency room doctors that saw her just after she burned herself with the coffee.
Also, where did you get your statistics degree? I'm curious since your analysis of coffee serving temperature isn't backed up with a reference to a study, so I assume you completed the study yourself.
Oh, and where did you get your law degree? Since you don't think any of the arguments make sense, I assume you've read the reports that McDonald's had received 700 previous complaints about the coffee being too hot, making the claim that "He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature" seem less like an accident and more like negligence.
The old lady asking for $20,000 to cover the medical bills for her nasty burns was extorting?
Not in terms of environmental hazard per human served.
We're doing okay as a planet if we stuff several million people into 100 square kilometers, if it meant that large swaths of the planet could then be left in a natural or "recharge" state. Suburban life has far more of an impact on the planet.
The real secret to success is having the drive and motivation, along with huge piles of luck.
Every business, every restaurant, every person has good and bad days/products/etc. Some people get really lucky on their good days and get noticed, and then proceed to have good days when it counts. Others who may be equally or more "deserving" (whatever that means) don't.
Certainly those that never try won't succeed. But those that try and succeed aren't better or more deserving than those who failed - they just got lucky.
I think your comment applies to pretty much every organization that has been drifting toward extremism, both political and non-.