I bet that, pound for pound, cows are the most prevalent hoofed mammal on the planet. As an pseudo-evolutionary tactic, cows have been greatly rewarded for their evolved ability to be damned tasty.
Sure, but sometimes a division of labor leads to a lack of knowledge about the effort involved in said labor, which then leads to a lack of respect for the laborers or the end product itself.
Killing your own food might be one of the more extreme ways to address this - there are certainly people who can eat meat but are too squeamish at the sight of blood, and they have a right to eat meat just like the rest of us - but there are other plenty of other ways to address this, too.
For example, Dirty Jobs is all about showing how some of the manual jobs in our country get done, and celebrating the fact that there are people out there willing to do them for us. Matthew Moore's Digital Farm Collective project is designed to show non-farmers the effort involved in the production of their vegetables - if you knew that it took the use of a small bit of our fertile planet and some of our precious water for 140 days just to grow one single carrot, might you be a little more invested in the appreciation of that carrot in your dinner? Would you be less likely to let it rot in your fridge?
I think that's by design. I understood that manufacturers, to avoid any liability, calibrate the speedometer to account for the largest possible tire size you could fit on the vehicle - and then add a margin on top of that. If your tires are under this size, your speed is much lower than the car thinks.
As you say, the solar farm might make engineering sense but fails business sense. What company wants to buy or create power during the day, when it's most expensive, so they can store it, lose 50% of it, then sell it at night when power is cheaper?
The biggest advantage in my mind of solar power is that it correlates well with air conditioning requirements. I'm not sure there's much benefit in making a 24/7 solar plant (with the daytime oversized tower as you mention) when they could instead dump the 300MW on the grid all day, and then use the wind farm or baseline nuclear plant down the road to provide power at night.
What we need are facilities that generate excess power at night. Nuclear, wind, or hydro, for example, which could be used to store energy when it's cheaper and then resold at daytime rates. This is a great use for wind power, because dumping it into a storage system smooths out its fluctuations; by the next morning you know exactly how much you stored overnight and can plan it's distribution accordingly.
It's not that Apple sprinkles fairy dust on their machines making them better, it's more that Dell sprinkles corporate dandruff all over their products, making them somehow less than the sum of their parts.
Only if you directly control them - which most people in any society don't have time to do unless their day job is as a pension fund manager.
Otherwise you have to trust someone. Sure, there may be a pension fund out there with specific guidelines that require investment in only green companies, or only companies that aren't Facebook. But - - - - there's no guarantee in a capitalist society that there will be a given company that caters to your specific wants.
So no, overall I don't think most people have the ability to control their own pension funds (and work their day job).
Using "billion trillion" is at least using two terms from the same nomenclature. Using "billion terra" is mixing SI nomenclature with standard counting nomenclature - which just seems silly.
And the only reason some number of people know what a terabyte is? Because people started using it when the term was appropriate, instead of using "one million megabytes". Now zettabyte is the relevant term and people need to learn it. Fortunately they can drop kilobyte from their memory to make room; no one cares about those any more.
I work for a large company, and I already bring my own laptop to work. I started with VPN at home - which my company allows provided we run McAfee or an equivalent on our home computers. (Our company's McAfee license allows for deployment to the private computers of all employees.)
Then, as my job responsibilities grew, and I started needing a laptop to run meetings, I started bringing in my own laptop. The company won't provide me with one because my main job responsibilities still require a large desktop machine. (I'm a hardware developer and use some beefy tools.) The loaner laptops are by definition crap. So I brought in my own, connected to our complementary public wireless network (for customers, vendors, and guests) and then VPN in from the conference room or my desk.
Then I started connecting to the internal wireless network instead. It's more reliable -VPN seems to drop far too often, and when it does it blows up a remote desktop session which doesn't work well in a meeting.
Sometimes wireless can be spotty in an office building, so to avoid that I started just plugging into the hard line.
I'm by no means the only person that does this. In my own group alone I believe that 50% of the engineers now bring their own devices. And 50% of the marketing people do too, though theirs are iPads instead of netbooks and laptops - the company issues them laptops but they don't want to carry them around.
If you haven't seen it before, you should add Futurity to your web reading rotation. It is a website dedicated to news stories about American university research, and (no surprise) headlines today with this mobility story.
The prime assumption is that the person from whom you buy the used couch is making space to buy another new one. Then, you have to decide how many of the new buyers would pay the new product price if they knew there was no resale value.
For your couch analogy, there'd probably be no change in new product sales. (Who buys a couch for its resale value?) But for good old-fashioned car analogies, I think a lot of people would pay less for a new car if they knew it would be 100% worthless whenever they sold it, either one or two or ten years later. And I think video game buyers have a lot more in common with car buyers than couch buyers. Would most of the people who choose to buy and play new games continue to spend the same amount on new games if they couldn't resell them when finished? Probably not.
Hence, part of Mike West's argument is probably bull.
Blekko does exactly this. With their slash thingy you can search for "global warming" and only get the/liberal or/political or/scientific results - just want you already believe and want to be reaffirmed in.
Most people who use the internet have no idea what "terabyte" means. They probably think it's a marketing term like "Pentium".
And if I recall correctly, the U.S. uses "million" and "billion" differently than Europe does. I'm too lazy to Google the difference now but I don't think those translate very well either.
I'm an AT&T customer. So far I haven't been given any notification (outside of Slashdot) that my DSL account is about to receive a bandwidth cap. Moreover, I really have no idea how much bandwidth I use. I've read recent stories about methods to track my own use, but honestly, why should I? If they are going to charge me or punish me for exceeding an arbitrary limit, won't they be required to tell me how close I am to that limit?
I have no love for AT&T. I refuse to use their cellular service because I don't want to give AT&T any more of my money after their wiretap debacle. But my only other high speed internet service options are Clearwire (horror stories of low function) or Suddenlink (personal experience with 40% upstream packet loss), so I'm pretty much stuck with AT&T.
Zettabyte already is a relevant term. It means 10^21 bytes. Using "billion terabytes" is more confusing because you're using two different scaling factors. It would make more sense to say "billion trillion bytes".
Disney has for decades made it a habit to take things in and out of print. For some reason they think it increases sales because they can advertise both "new" releases and things going "back in the vault".
This shouldn't, of course, have any effect on Netflix' ability to store and ship DVDs. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if Netflix finds a lot more of its out-of-print DVDs "accidentally broken" by customers. Netflix also signs deals with providers that may voluntarily limit their rights to ship DVDs, often in exchange for streaming licenses. Given that Netflix signed one with Disney recently, I'd suspect this was the culprit. Netflix follows Disney's "vault" model for the major titles, and in exchange they can stream all the direct-to-video and lower-budget films all the time.
I think that they considered the lives of the marines more important than the helicopter. That wouldn't have saved the tail anyway; the tail broke off on the other side of the compound wall, so it would have needed to be loaded separately, by marines who left the safety of the walled compound.
Well, of course there's no real debate. Every single birther ignores the fact that Obama's mother was an American citizen, along with all the other various facts they ignore. But that doesn't mean there's no trumped-up (heh) distract-us-from-important-things debate.
I think that makes them, as "options", worthless. The CEO has to invest his own money to buy the stock (rather than have the money fronted by his broker as is done in a single-day sale), and then hold it for what could be the length of typical employment. It would make more sense for him to execute immediately if he wanted to stick with the company for ten years, which is no different than him simply buying the same number of shares on the open market (assuming he wasn't getting some sort of look-back deal on his option price).
Now, if you want to proceed with your line of thinking, I'd suggest doing it as a stock grant. Grant the CEO shares, but require him to hold them for 10 years until they vest. If he leaves the company before they have vested he loses them.
Well Comcast, Disney, and the other content providers can always choose to go 1970s-BBC on themselves, deleting old content so that it "doesn't compete" with newer content.
Or they could, you know, choose to not release that older content on DVD, thereby preventing Netflix from utilizing their fair rights to buy some copies and loan them out.
(It goes without saying that they could choose not to license it to Netflix for streaming.)
Slashdot Mirror
I only dispose of trash in my own personal incinerator and landfill in the backyard.
So you lived in Osama's compound?
Show your nieces Digital Farm Collective. They may like some of the videos. And his point is to show the effort involved in the creation of food (in this case vegetables) so maybe they'll pick up on this and start applying it to meats as well.
I bet that, pound for pound, cows are the most prevalent hoofed mammal on the planet. As an pseudo-evolutionary tactic, cows have been greatly rewarded for their evolved ability to be damned tasty.
Sure, but sometimes a division of labor leads to a lack of knowledge about the effort involved in said labor, which then leads to a lack of respect for the laborers or the end product itself.
Killing your own food might be one of the more extreme ways to address this - there are certainly people who can eat meat but are too squeamish at the sight of blood, and they have a right to eat meat just like the rest of us - but there are other plenty of other ways to address this, too.
For example, Dirty Jobs is all about showing how some of the manual jobs in our country get done, and celebrating the fact that there are people out there willing to do them for us. Matthew Moore's Digital Farm Collective project is designed to show non-farmers the effort involved in the production of their vegetables - if you knew that it took the use of a small bit of our fertile planet and some of our precious water for 140 days just to grow one single carrot, might you be a little more invested in the appreciation of that carrot in your dinner? Would you be less likely to let it rot in your fridge?
I think that's by design. I understood that manufacturers, to avoid any liability, calibrate the speedometer to account for the largest possible tire size you could fit on the vehicle - and then add a margin on top of that. If your tires are under this size, your speed is much lower than the car thinks.
As you say, the solar farm might make engineering sense but fails business sense. What company wants to buy or create power during the day, when it's most expensive, so they can store it, lose 50% of it, then sell it at night when power is cheaper?
The biggest advantage in my mind of solar power is that it correlates well with air conditioning requirements. I'm not sure there's much benefit in making a 24/7 solar plant (with the daytime oversized tower as you mention) when they could instead dump the 300MW on the grid all day, and then use the wind farm or baseline nuclear plant down the road to provide power at night.
What we need are facilities that generate excess power at night. Nuclear, wind, or hydro, for example, which could be used to store energy when it's cheaper and then resold at daytime rates. This is a great use for wind power, because dumping it into a storage system smooths out its fluctuations; by the next morning you know exactly how much you stored overnight and can plan it's distribution accordingly.
It's not that Apple sprinkles fairy dust on their machines making them better, it's more that Dell sprinkles corporate dandruff all over their products, making them somehow less than the sum of their parts.
Only if you directly control them - which most people in any society don't have time to do unless their day job is as a pension fund manager.
Otherwise you have to trust someone. Sure, there may be a pension fund out there with specific guidelines that require investment in only green companies, or only companies that aren't Facebook. But - - - - there's no guarantee in a capitalist society that there will be a given company that caters to your specific wants.
So no, overall I don't think most people have the ability to control their own pension funds (and work their day job).
Using "billion trillion" is at least using two terms from the same nomenclature. Using "billion terra" is mixing SI nomenclature with standard counting nomenclature - which just seems silly.
And the only reason some number of people know what a terabyte is? Because people started using it when the term was appropriate, instead of using "one million megabytes". Now zettabyte is the relevant term and people need to learn it. Fortunately they can drop kilobyte from their memory to make room; no one cares about those any more.
I work for a large company, and I already bring my own laptop to work. I started with VPN at home - which my company allows provided we run McAfee or an equivalent on our home computers. (Our company's McAfee license allows for deployment to the private computers of all employees.)
Then, as my job responsibilities grew, and I started needing a laptop to run meetings, I started bringing in my own laptop. The company won't provide me with one because my main job responsibilities still require a large desktop machine. (I'm a hardware developer and use some beefy tools.) The loaner laptops are by definition crap. So I brought in my own, connected to our complementary public wireless network (for customers, vendors, and guests) and then VPN in from the conference room or my desk.
Then I started connecting to the internal wireless network instead. It's more reliable -VPN seems to drop far too often, and when it does it blows up a remote desktop session which doesn't work well in a meeting.
Sometimes wireless can be spotty in an office building, so to avoid that I started just plugging into the hard line.
I'm by no means the only person that does this. In my own group alone I believe that 50% of the engineers now bring their own devices. And 50% of the marketing people do too, though theirs are iPads instead of netbooks and laptops - the company issues them laptops but they don't want to carry them around.
If you haven't seen it before, you should add Futurity to your web reading rotation. It is a website dedicated to news stories about American university research, and (no surprise) headlines today with this mobility story.
The prime assumption is that the person from whom you buy the used couch is making space to buy another new one. Then, you have to decide how many of the new buyers would pay the new product price if they knew there was no resale value.
For your couch analogy, there'd probably be no change in new product sales. (Who buys a couch for its resale value?) But for good old-fashioned car analogies, I think a lot of people would pay less for a new car if they knew it would be 100% worthless whenever they sold it, either one or two or ten years later. And I think video game buyers have a lot more in common with car buyers than couch buyers. Would most of the people who choose to buy and play new games continue to spend the same amount on new games if they couldn't resell them when finished? Probably not.
Hence, part of Mike West's argument is probably bull.
Blekko does exactly this. With their slash thingy you can search for "global warming" and only get the /liberal or /political or /scientific results - just want you already believe and want to be reaffirmed in.
I know someone who works for Blekko.
Don't worry. Few will watch it. Sure, it might sound like Cops, but it's actually more like CSPAN.
Most people who use the internet have no idea what "terabyte" means. They probably think it's a marketing term like "Pentium".
And if I recall correctly, the U.S. uses "million" and "billion" differently than Europe does. I'm too lazy to Google the difference now but I don't think those translate very well either.
I'm an AT&T customer. So far I haven't been given any notification (outside of Slashdot) that my DSL account is about to receive a bandwidth cap. Moreover, I really have no idea how much bandwidth I use. I've read recent stories about methods to track my own use, but honestly, why should I? If they are going to charge me or punish me for exceeding an arbitrary limit, won't they be required to tell me how close I am to that limit?
I have no love for AT&T. I refuse to use their cellular service because I don't want to give AT&T any more of my money after their wiretap debacle. But my only other high speed internet service options are Clearwire (horror stories of low function) or Suddenlink (personal experience with 40% upstream packet loss), so I'm pretty much stuck with AT&T.
Well, no reason to bother with an MD5 for this download; you know it's what it says it is...
You could have registered apple-bites.com anyway. Just make it your blog about Granny Smiths and Red Delicious and you'd be fine.
Zettabyte already is a relevant term. It means 10^21 bytes. Using "billion terabytes" is more confusing because you're using two different scaling factors. It would make more sense to say "billion trillion bytes".
Disney has for decades made it a habit to take things in and out of print. For some reason they think it increases sales because they can advertise both "new" releases and things going "back in the vault".
This shouldn't, of course, have any effect on Netflix' ability to store and ship DVDs. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if Netflix finds a lot more of its out-of-print DVDs "accidentally broken" by customers. Netflix also signs deals with providers that may voluntarily limit their rights to ship DVDs, often in exchange for streaming licenses. Given that Netflix signed one with Disney recently, I'd suspect this was the culprit. Netflix follows Disney's "vault" model for the major titles, and in exchange they can stream all the direct-to-video and lower-budget films all the time.
I think that they considered the lives of the marines more important than the helicopter. That wouldn't have saved the tail anyway; the tail broke off on the other side of the compound wall, so it would have needed to be loaded separately, by marines who left the safety of the walled compound.
Well, of course there's no real debate. Every single birther ignores the fact that Obama's mother was an American citizen, along with all the other various facts they ignore. But that doesn't mean there's no trumped-up (heh) distract-us-from-important-things debate.
I think that makes them, as "options", worthless. The CEO has to invest his own money to buy the stock (rather than have the money fronted by his broker as is done in a single-day sale), and then hold it for what could be the length of typical employment. It would make more sense for him to execute immediately if he wanted to stick with the company for ten years, which is no different than him simply buying the same number of shares on the open market (assuming he wasn't getting some sort of look-back deal on his option price).
Now, if you want to proceed with your line of thinking, I'd suggest doing it as a stock grant. Grant the CEO shares, but require him to hold them for 10 years until they vest. If he leaves the company before they have vested he loses them.
Well Comcast, Disney, and the other content providers can always choose to go 1970s-BBC on themselves, deleting old content so that it "doesn't compete" with newer content.
Or they could, you know, choose to not release that older content on DVD, thereby preventing Netflix from utilizing their fair rights to buy some copies and loan them out.
(It goes without saying that they could choose not to license it to Netflix for streaming.)
So is there a corollary to this that says: "If you are a B class person, go into management"?