The fact that local contractors in our area are using illegal migrant labor is common knowledge - it's been reported in the paper. It's hardly racism to repeat that.
I'm not a big fan of the Time Capsule, Apple sells, but it would be the right tool if you had a MacBook Air (with its single USB port and no FireWire). For anything else, get a FireWire external drive. The first time you plug it in to your Mac, you'll be prompted to set it up as a Time Machine device.
I did this for quite a while, but my machine is a laptop. When I was using it, I had to choose between 1) being tethered to the external drive or 2) not having Time Machine backing up. If I chose 2), then when I was done with the machine instead of closing the lid and letting it sleep, I had to leave it run so a TM backup could get done. This got old fast, and I bought a Time Capsule.
Your solution is great for a desktop machine. For a laptop... not so much.
...where you live. On this planet, Greenpeace, etc, are pretty vocal about the need for population control. And this:
Yes, there is some of this that goes on, but for the most part toxic dumps do not sell.
The fact that "toxic waste dumps don't sell" is a "dirty secret of the environmental movement"? WTF? Again, on this planet, environmental groups spend their time trying to force businesses to clean up their own messes, not interfering in the sale of toxic waste dumps.
This is another thing that people always forget to bring up - the giant expenditures, mostly defense, but also the other things in the parent post, required to make conventional energy available. Plus the huge externalities in the form of pollution, etc...
Commercial space travel and commercial space satellites will increase the demand for more efficient solar panels
So much concentrated dumbassery in so few words. Let's start from the beginning - 1) there is no, zero, nada market for commercial space travel, and there's no indication that there will ever be. There is nothing you can obtain in space that is a) useful on earth (you know, where all the people live?), and b) can be obtained more cheaply in space.
2) We have a number of "commercial space satellites" (are there any ground-based satellites?) already - which has had no noticeable effect on demand for solar panels. And what possible mechanism could there be for stimulating such demand? I'm really having a hard time figuring out the connection here - while satellites do tend to use solar panels, there's only so many you can put up - they can't possibly affect the market much. And even in the vanishingly unlikely event that a lot of travel does end up going into interplanetary travel, those spacecraft would pretty much require nuclear power plants of some sort, as solar power gets scarce in the outer solar system.
If it's really that bad it must be more radioactive than plain old uranium ore (since otherwise putting it back in the ground would be a no brainer) and hence it would be a better fuel source.
"More radioactive" != "better fuel source". There are plenty of elements "more radioactive" than uranium, but are unsuited as nuclear fuel because they have a poor neutron absorption coefficient, etc.
It's the same answer as for why nuclear power in general hasn't taken off. It's not all that cost effective. I can't find the link now, but I read about a study that concluded that a new nuclear power plant would produce electricity at roughly twice the cost of conventional plants. Of course, solar and wind energy really need subsidies to be cost effective too, but given that a nuclear plant would be politically far more difficult to push through, I think the decision to do solar/wind/etc is pretty reasonable.
... other forms of creativity have arisen. Think about the massive increase in things like photography, web page design, video (YouTube, anyone)? There are probably more outlets for the creative person today than there have ever been in the past - it's just that with more things to choose from, fewer people are choosing to make music.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that all these solar panels being used up by NJ would actually be put to use in AZ? Given that AZ doesn't have these incentives and solar panels are therefore very costly there, I think it's far more likely that they would just go unused, and solar panel production would just stabilize at a lower level (and higher cost per KW).
No, this is absolutely retarded. They're not "incentivizing" solar power, they're subsidizing it. Heavily. You and I are paying for it. That's money that could be doing a lot of actual good if put to better use.
These kind of arguments always ignore externalities. There are two payoffs to the use of these sorts of alternative energy sources. The economic payoff goes to the people getting the subsidies (obviously). The external payoff goes to others: society in the form of increased energy security (i.e., we become less vulnerable to oil shocks), the power companies, in the form of lower loads on their grids (they spend less money on upgrading capacity), society again in the form of lower pollution (everyone is healthier, we spend less money on health, etc). So it's perfectly reasonable that the taxpayers subsidize this kind of thing - there is a payoff for them. Whether these subsidies are the BEST use of this money is another question, and obviously opinions will differ on that.
You should have no problem finding someone to instal the whole thing for $1000.
You're kidding, right? Around here, getting a contractor to install a asphalt shingle roof, with labor provided by illegal immigrants, costs $5000. I got two quotes for getting a 3 KW system installed on my roof and they both ran almost $30k. I appreciate the links to the low cost parts, can you provide a similar link for the installation?
You realize that there is an upfront cost whether the state kicks in or not, right? Basically your argument is "this is not worthwhile for me to do, but it is worthwhile for other people to do it for me". If the overall cost of solar isn't worth it to you, then it is likely not an economically viable project.
"The upfront costs are too high" != "this project is not economically viable". There are plenty of activities (including solar power) that pay off in the long term, but are nonetheless too expensive to pay for upfront. Did you get a degree? Did you pay for it all upfront or did you get loans, Pell Grants, or cash from mom and dad? Did it pay off in the form of higher lifetime income?
Getting a subsidy to overcome this kind of thing, particularly in cases like this where there are substantial positive externalities (pollution reduction, energy security, etc) is EXACTLY the kind of thing the government should be doing.
There is a difference between "sexism" (an act) and a correlation that only X % of Y are women.
Over 50% of the population is female. Something like 20% of all coders (including commercial software) are female. But only 1.5% of FOSS coders are female. Why is that? Can't be that there aren't enough women (the over 50% part). Can't be that women are inherently bad coders (lots in the commercial software world).
There is also a difference between sexism the act and a moron who thinks it's funny to put porn in a powerpoint presentation, even when 98% of his audience is going to be male.
(slaps forehead) Now I get it... you just don't know what sexism IS. I've got news for you, partner - "putting porn in the powerpoint" IS "sexism the act". By definition. It's, you know, in the law and everything. Haven't you ever worked for a company? If so, better pay more attention during the "respect for others" training.
Right. Because trying not to offend people is a horrible crime that ought to be stamped out. I think you need to wake up, lady. I'm in the tech business too, and I see women getting condescended to about 10x as often as I see political correctness being a problem. And I'm a man.
Ok, then tell me. If there's "no sexism", then why is it that there are practically no women involved in FOSS? Especially given that female participation in commercial software development is relatively high.
Those who continue to say "we're not sexists! Everything's fine, dammit!" need to come up with some explanation as to why female participation in FOSS is so low. Unless, of course, they just don't give a damn... which is instructive in itself.
... when it's not targeted at you. You're very fond of throwing around the "tiny percentage" idea. Here's another one for you: only a tiny percentage of blacks were lynched following the civil war. So the rest should have just "manned up", right? The truth: it doesn't take very many instances of discrimination to intimidate an entire group.
Your argument has already been rather devastatingly refuted above (see harlows_monkeys post on how many nigger/kike/etc posts are acceptable, given that most developers are white). Obviously, most posts in a technical forum are going to be technical. But it only takes a few posts that denigrate women to make women conclude that they're not welcome.
Yes, you can nutpick feminist comments all you want - for each one of these, you could dig up about a million ant-feminist nutjob comments (and no, I'm not going to bother to do so). But regardless of all that, the fact is that women are seriously discriminated against in the world of science and technology - the 1.5% figure ought to be somewhat convincing.
I seriously can't believe I'm even reading a defense of comments like those made by "mikeeUSA".
Besides this isn't the only field with gender inequity. Visit a college sometime and look inside their "health and human development" classes - all women. But nobody complains about sexism in HHD - they just accept the fact few men are interested in that field. The same is true in engineering.
Right. Society steers women into relatively low-paying jobs, and men into relatively high paying jobs. No problem, right?
And women bear the children == sexism? Call me when you're serious. Women bearing children is biology. Women not being in science & engineering is because they're encouraged not to be.
To reiterate, I'm not denying that there is an disturbingly low percentage of women in FOSS development. I'm just questioning what's causing that. It's probably a number of factors including Hollywood not showing women as the computer hacker in many of their movies (except maybe Hackers). It's predominantly the stereotypical male. Women have to overcome that
My jaw is hitting the floor. After admitting that society puts roadblocks in the way of women succeeding as FOSS coders, your answer is that "women have to overcome that"? Why don't we, you know, fix society? We could start with you not putting the onus on women, for one thing.
If I understand this correctly, the only thing you could possibly believe is what you've witnessed yourself. In other words, you believe that your own personal anecdotes are data.
I'm a manager in an engineering firm (think the pointy-haired boss, but less clueless) - although we don't do software development, we occasionally have the need for code analysts. I think it's highly unlikely that experience with a gambling firm would be disqualifying. If you know your stuff, you should be good to go. Just list the official company name (which probably doesn't scream "we do gambling") on your resume, and focus on the technology you actually use and are familiar with. You should be fine.
... not that I have any particular interest in pushing.Net, but there is a reason that you as an end user care about how easy it is to develop in an environment. Applications that are easy to develop cost less. So while it's no skin off your nose if a developer has to work extra hard to make an application... you will end up paying more for such an application.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that local contractors in our area are using illegal migrant labor is common knowledge - it's been reported in the paper. It's hardly racism to repeat that.
I did this for quite a while, but my machine is a laptop. When I was using it, I had to choose between 1) being tethered to the external drive or 2) not having Time Machine backing up. If I chose 2), then when I was done with the machine instead of closing the lid and letting it sleep, I had to leave it run so a TM backup could get done. This got old fast, and I bought a Time Capsule.
Your solution is great for a desktop machine. For a laptop... not so much.
...where you live. On this planet, Greenpeace, etc, are pretty vocal about the need for population control. And this:
The fact that "toxic waste dumps don't sell" is a "dirty secret of the environmental movement"? WTF? Again, on this planet, environmental groups spend their time trying to force businesses to clean up their own messes, not interfering in the sale of toxic waste dumps.
This is another thing that people always forget to bring up - the giant expenditures, mostly defense, but also the other things in the parent post, required to make conventional energy available. Plus the huge externalities in the form of pollution, etc...
So much concentrated dumbassery in so few words. Let's start from the beginning - 1) there is no, zero, nada market for commercial space travel, and there's no indication that there will ever be. There is nothing you can obtain in space that is a) useful on earth (you know, where all the people live?), and b) can be obtained more cheaply in space.
2) We have a number of "commercial space satellites" (are there any ground-based satellites?) already - which has had no noticeable effect on demand for solar panels. And what possible mechanism could there be for stimulating such demand? I'm really having a hard time figuring out the connection here - while satellites do tend to use solar panels, there's only so many you can put up - they can't possibly affect the market much. And even in the vanishingly unlikely event that a lot of travel does end up going into interplanetary travel, those spacecraft would pretty much require nuclear power plants of some sort, as solar power gets scarce in the outer solar system.
"More radioactive" != "better fuel source". There are plenty of elements "more radioactive" than uranium, but are unsuited as nuclear fuel because they have a poor neutron absorption coefficient, etc.
It's the same answer as for why nuclear power in general hasn't taken off. It's not all that cost effective. I can't find the link now, but I read about a study that concluded that a new nuclear power plant would produce electricity at roughly twice the cost of conventional plants. Of course, solar and wind energy really need subsidies to be cost effective too, but given that a nuclear plant would be politically far more difficult to push through, I think the decision to do solar/wind/etc is pretty reasonable.
... other forms of creativity have arisen. Think about the massive increase in things like photography, web page design, video (YouTube, anyone)? There are probably more outlets for the creative person today than there have ever been in the past - it's just that with more things to choose from, fewer people are choosing to make music.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that all these solar panels being used up by NJ would actually be put to use in AZ? Given that AZ doesn't have these incentives and solar panels are therefore very costly there, I think it's far more likely that they would just go unused, and solar panel production would just stabilize at a lower level (and higher cost per KW).
These kind of arguments always ignore externalities. There are two payoffs to the use of these sorts of alternative energy sources. The economic payoff goes to the people getting the subsidies (obviously). The external payoff goes to others: society in the form of increased energy security (i.e., we become less vulnerable to oil shocks), the power companies, in the form of lower loads on their grids (they spend less money on upgrading capacity), society again in the form of lower pollution (everyone is healthier, we spend less money on health, etc). So it's perfectly reasonable that the taxpayers subsidize this kind of thing - there is a payoff for them. Whether these subsidies are the BEST use of this money is another question, and obviously opinions will differ on that.
You're kidding, right? Around here, getting a contractor to install a asphalt shingle roof, with labor provided by illegal immigrants, costs $5000. I got two quotes for getting a 3 KW system installed on my roof and they both ran almost $30k. I appreciate the links to the low cost parts, can you provide a similar link for the installation?
"The upfront costs are too high" != "this project is not economically viable". There are plenty of activities (including solar power) that pay off in the long term, but are nonetheless too expensive to pay for upfront. Did you get a degree? Did you pay for it all upfront or did you get loans, Pell Grants, or cash from mom and dad? Did it pay off in the form of higher lifetime income?
Getting a subsidy to overcome this kind of thing, particularly in cases like this where there are substantial positive externalities (pollution reduction, energy security, etc) is EXACTLY the kind of thing the government should be doing.
Over 50% of the population is female. Something like 20% of all coders (including commercial software) are female. But only 1.5% of FOSS coders are female. Why is that? Can't be that there aren't enough women (the over 50% part). Can't be that women are inherently bad coders (lots in the commercial software world).
(slaps forehead) Now I get it... you just don't know what sexism IS. I've got news for you, partner - "putting porn in the powerpoint" IS "sexism the act". By definition. It's, you know, in the law and everything. Haven't you ever worked for a company? If so, better pay more attention during the "respect for others" training.
Right. Because trying not to offend people is a horrible crime that ought to be stamped out. I think you need to wake up, lady. I'm in the tech business too, and I see women getting condescended to about 10x as often as I see political correctness being a problem. And I'm a man.
Ok, then tell me. If there's "no sexism", then why is it that there are practically no women involved in FOSS? Especially given that female participation in commercial software development is relatively high.
Those who continue to say "we're not sexists! Everything's fine, dammit!" need to come up with some explanation as to why female participation in FOSS is so low. Unless, of course, they just don't give a damn... which is instructive in itself.
... when it's not targeted at you. You're very fond of throwing around the "tiny percentage" idea. Here's another one for you: only a tiny percentage of blacks were lynched following the civil war. So the rest should have just "manned up", right? The truth: it doesn't take very many instances of discrimination to intimidate an entire group.
Your argument has already been rather devastatingly refuted above (see harlows_monkeys post on how many nigger/kike/etc posts are acceptable, given that most developers are white). Obviously, most posts in a technical forum are going to be technical. But it only takes a few posts that denigrate women to make women conclude that they're not welcome.
It doesn't take very many posts that imply "girls aren't welcome here" before girls take the point that they're not welcome here.
Yes, you can nutpick feminist comments all you want - for each one of these, you could dig up about a million ant-feminist nutjob comments (and no, I'm not going to bother to do so). But regardless of all that, the fact is that women are seriously discriminated against in the world of science and technology - the 1.5% figure ought to be somewhat convincing.
I seriously can't believe I'm even reading a defense of comments like those made by "mikeeUSA".
... is just a coincidence, I'm sure.
Right. Society steers women into relatively low-paying jobs, and men into relatively high paying jobs. No problem, right?
And women bear the children == sexism? Call me when you're serious. Women bearing children is biology. Women not being in science & engineering is because they're encouraged not to be.
My jaw is hitting the floor. After admitting that society puts roadblocks in the way of women succeeding as FOSS coders, your answer is that "women have to overcome that"? Why don't we, you know, fix society? We could start with you not putting the onus on women, for one thing.
If I understand this correctly, the only thing you could possibly believe is what you've witnessed yourself. In other words, you believe that your own personal anecdotes are data.
I'm a manager in an engineering firm (think the pointy-haired boss, but less clueless) - although we don't do software development, we occasionally have the need for code analysts. I think it's highly unlikely that experience with a gambling firm would be disqualifying. If you know your stuff, you should be good to go. Just list the official company name (which probably doesn't scream "we do gambling") on your resume, and focus on the technology you actually use and are familiar with. You should be fine.
... not that I have any particular interest in pushing .Net, but there is a reason that you as an end user care about how easy it is to develop in an environment. Applications that are easy to develop cost less. So while it's no skin off your nose if a developer has to work extra hard to make an application... you will end up paying more for such an application.