It's not that it's a format that he dislikes; it's in a format that is cumbersome to read. There's a reason we moved away from stone tablets - formats are important.
MS Word is a pretty poor choice to distribute a read-only document. Even PDF has unnecessary cruft and overhead if it's not intended to be printed.
The Liberal government got in on the narrowest of margins due entirely to a series of dodgy preference deals.
Rewrite history much? The Coalition won 90 seats; Labor won 55. It wasn't only most definitively not a narrow margin, it was one of the most decisive elections in recent history. Preferences deals aren't even relevant in the lower house, which is what determines who forms government; preference deals only happen with the Senate, and all the squawking about preferences this election wasn't to do with the coalition; it was to do with the minor parties, who finally got around to exploiting the preferential system the way the major parties have for years, and won a handful of seats, such that they hold the balance of power in the Senate (as long as the Greens vote in a bloc with Labor, which so far, they have).
Above that, they didn't advertise their polices, their entire campaign was based on "hate Labor". The Libs didn't even release a fiscal policy until after the election. Thats how bad they were. Their entire campaign was based on flinging shit at Rudd... Nothing more.
They didn't even need to do that. The Labor party self-destructed - they couldn't even keep the same prime minister for a whole term during the last six years. It was the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd backstabbing powerplay that won the Coalition the election.
Please stop pretending you know anything about the current government in Australia, Australians or anything about Australia in General.
No, minimum wage is setting a floor on living standards.
No it doesn't. If you're unemployed, or not employed full-time, you will be living below the "standard" of people on the minimum wage, all other factors being equal. Also, if you have an unemployed wife or children, your standard of living will be lower than that of people who can spend their entire minimum wage on themselves.
You could say the minimum wage sets a floor on living standards for full-time workers with no dependents, but that's not as catchy.
The idea that economics is a zero sum game where one person can only get rich if they make others poor is a Marxist viewpoint, not a conservative viewpoint. Economic conservatives recognize that the surest way to increase the wealth of as many individuals as possible is to promote wealth creation by maximizing economic freedom through low taxes, low regulation and strong protection of private property rights.
I have no idea why he targeted conservatives, but zero-sum economics is not just a Marxist viewpoint anymore - it's a popular viewpoint for many who don't understand economics, because they can intuitively understand it.
I see you're a fan of the theory that an arrow could never hit a moving turtle, because over small enough intervals, it only moves a negligible fraction of the distance.
Are you suggesting that there's a huge amount of US workers just waiting to pick fruit and plant pine trees? And the only thing holding them back is that the minimum wage is too high?
Yes. He's saying that because the minimum wage is too high, jobs are not going to those who expect the minimum wage (i.e. US workers). It's like any sort of market manipulation - screw with the market, create a black market. Frequently, the black market turns out to be worse than the market would be without the manipulation (e.g. because the workers are illegal anyway, they can also be abused without them going to the authorities).
Oh, those poor desperate people who had to work. I'm so glad to see they can now sit and accomplish nothing under a welfare system that pacifies them by providing their basic needs and no more, while providing a disincentive to actually bettering themselves.
The US government applied tariffs to Chinese solar panels because the Chinese were dumping them in the US market.
In other words, they were selling them more cheaply than the local manufacturers could, and the government moved to protect local industry at the cost of the consumer. I'm not sure why you think that's a valid defence.
Hardly new. Slashdot frequently runs doom-is-nigh, overblown, click-baity summaries for the purposes of drawing in viewers (and thus, revenue). All those stupid social sites use vague headlines ending with "...you won't believe what happens next!" to try and intrigue viewers for the same reason. Calling it "mind control" is setting the bar pretty low.
All news is filtered. You wouldn't have time to digest every single piece of information generated every day. The question is, what is your news filtered by? I don't see how "upbeat" is any worse than "political", "tech", "sport", or "local".
I'm in trouble then. In the last couple of weeks, I've performed a number of human experiments on the website I manage, including: * Do they push green buttons more than red buttons? * Do they fill in forms more reliably if it's one big form, or split across multiple pages? * Do people finish reading a page more often if the text is in large font rather than a small?
Nobody who advocates the gold standard (of whom I'm not one, just playing a bit of devil's advocate) believes we should be running around with pockets full of gold doubloons. The gold standard doesn't mean the currency is gold, it means the currency is backed by gold - that is, whoever has issued the currency holds enough gold in reserve to exchange your dollars for bullion.
The reason isn't usually "gold, yay!"; it's proposed as a means of controlling inflation by tying money to something governments cannot manipulate (e.g. scarce physical matter). Bitcoins are usually appreciated by the same crowd, for the same reason, because governments cannot manipulate maths either.
Both can be true. If the price of energy goes up, people are going to start looking at alternative ways of spending less, that may not have been economical in the past. As power costs ramp up, the time it takes for the cost of insulation to pay for itself drops, making it more attractive.
The production figures in this article are all given as percentages of demand - not the actual amount generated. There's two reasons Germany could suddenly be producing an excess of energy: supply has increased, or demand has dropped. A quick Google shows German production has dropped 6% in the period 2004-12 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... ).
So the reason isn't that Germany's renewable plants are producing an abundance of power - it's that people are demanding less power; presumably because they cannot afford prices that are among the most expensive in the world ( http://www.contactenergy.co.nz... )
Maybe it's just me, but if a phone can't even get to the dialer to make a phone call, that's a little further from "actually working" than "almost."
A phone that can get to the dialler to make a phone call would be "working". So you're not willing to acknowledge something as "almost working" until it's actually fully functional?
It's about how rapidly a changeover in energy production to sustainable can occur. Germany was one of the world's biggest nuclear energy producers(France being the leader of that pack), and they've gone from that to one of the biggest solar producers in only a year or so. With a really large economy, without losing much GDP. The point that's being demonstrated is that a power infrastructure changeover can be done without sacrificing being a first world nation along the way.
This is exactly the sort of response the OP's post is pre-empting. Germany hasn't suddenly changed their energy production to solar. For the vast majority of the year, they've changed it to coal. On occasion, they generate 50% of their power from solar. On average, they generate a tiny fraction of that (5% was bandied around upthread; have no idea from where that number was sourced though), with coal picking up the load.
The OPs point is that people like you shouldn't point to single instances of non-representative power generation, and then claim it's a revolution in solar power.
Oh, and the price of that power is triple that of energy in the US.
Your definition of "significant" seems to be pretty low-bar, especially when talking about the human species as a whole - as opposed to, say, a small community in one of the least populated states of a single country.
We, the most adaptable species the earth has ever produced (if measured by how fast we can move into previously inhospitable environments) are still feeling significant effects from global climate change.
It's a good thing that the prisoners rights were respected, regardless of the problem being an IT one at root. It's a bad thing that an IT problem is causing cops to be unable to file paperwork that would result in proper processing of prisoners
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, in the same way GIMP stands for Gnu Image Manipulation Program
It's not that it's a format that he dislikes; it's in a format that is cumbersome to read. There's a reason we moved away from stone tablets - formats are important.
MS Word is a pretty poor choice to distribute a read-only document. Even PDF has unnecessary cruft and overhead if it's not intended to be printed.
the common malcontent millennial armed with dozens of mod points around here, trained from birth to rail at every iniquity, but they are naive;
So, first you have a go at millennials for being worried about corruptiuon...
Between the `drug war,' our welfare state, piratic corporate governance and ever greater abuse of power by our government, we are rapidly catching up.
Then you say their worries are justified.
Which is it?
The Liberal government got in on the narrowest of margins due entirely to a series of dodgy preference deals.
Rewrite history much? The Coalition won 90 seats; Labor won 55. It wasn't only most definitively not a narrow margin, it was one of the most decisive elections in recent history. Preferences deals aren't even relevant in the lower house, which is what determines who forms government; preference deals only happen with the Senate, and all the squawking about preferences this election wasn't to do with the coalition; it was to do with the minor parties, who finally got around to exploiting the preferential system the way the major parties have for years, and won a handful of seats, such that they hold the balance of power in the Senate (as long as the Greens vote in a bloc with Labor, which so far, they have).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
Above that, they didn't advertise their polices, their entire campaign was based on "hate Labor". The Libs didn't even release a fiscal policy until after the election. Thats how bad they were. Their entire campaign was based on flinging shit at Rudd... Nothing more.
They didn't even need to do that. The Labor party self-destructed - they couldn't even keep the same prime minister for a whole term during the last six years. It was the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd backstabbing powerplay that won the Coalition the election.
Please stop pretending you know anything about the current government in Australia, Australians or anything about Australia in General.
Right back at you buddy.
They got to the middle class by living off welfare? Never happens.
No, minimum wage is setting a floor on living standards.
No it doesn't. If you're unemployed, or not employed full-time, you will be living below the "standard" of people on the minimum wage, all other factors being equal. Also, if you have an unemployed wife or children, your standard of living will be lower than that of people who can spend their entire minimum wage on themselves.
You could say the minimum wage sets a floor on living standards for full-time workers with no dependents, but that's not as catchy.
The idea that economics is a zero sum game where one person can only get rich if they make others poor is a Marxist viewpoint, not a conservative viewpoint. Economic conservatives recognize that the surest way to increase the wealth of as many individuals as possible is to promote wealth creation by maximizing economic freedom through low taxes, low regulation and strong protection of private property rights.
I have no idea why he targeted conservatives, but zero-sum economics is not just a Marxist viewpoint anymore - it's a popular viewpoint for many who don't understand economics, because they can intuitively understand it.
I see you're a fan of the theory that an arrow could never hit a moving turtle, because over small enough intervals, it only moves a negligible fraction of the distance.
Are you suggesting that there's a huge amount of US workers just waiting to pick fruit and plant pine trees? And the only thing holding them back is that the minimum wage is too high?
Yes. He's saying that because the minimum wage is too high, jobs are not going to those who expect the minimum wage (i.e. US workers). It's like any sort of market manipulation - screw with the market, create a black market. Frequently, the black market turns out to be worse than the market would be without the manipulation (e.g. because the workers are illegal anyway, they can also be abused without them going to the authorities).
Oh, those poor desperate people who had to work. I'm so glad to see they can now sit and accomplish nothing under a welfare system that pacifies them by providing their basic needs and no more, while providing a disincentive to actually bettering themselves.
The US government applied tariffs to Chinese solar panels because the Chinese were dumping them in the US market.
In other words, they were selling them more cheaply than the local manufacturers could, and the government moved to protect local industry at the cost of the consumer. I'm not sure why you think that's a valid defence.
Gaming also apparently interfered with your ability to use linebreaks. What, enter was never hot-keyed in any of those games?
Hardly new. Slashdot frequently runs doom-is-nigh, overblown, click-baity summaries for the purposes of drawing in viewers (and thus, revenue). All those stupid social sites use vague headlines ending with "...you won't believe what happens next!" to try and intrigue viewers for the same reason. Calling it "mind control" is setting the bar pretty low.
One must ask, what good is news that filters?
All news is filtered. You wouldn't have time to digest every single piece of information generated every day. The question is, what is your news filtered by? I don't see how "upbeat" is any worse than "political", "tech", "sport", or "local".
I'm in trouble then. In the last couple of weeks, I've performed a number of human experiments on the website I manage, including:
* Do they push green buttons more than red buttons?
* Do they fill in forms more reliably if it's one big form, or split across multiple pages?
* Do people finish reading a page more often if the text is in large font rather than a small?
Nobody who advocates the gold standard (of whom I'm not one, just playing a bit of devil's advocate) believes we should be running around with pockets full of gold doubloons. The gold standard doesn't mean the currency is gold, it means the currency is backed by gold - that is, whoever has issued the currency holds enough gold in reserve to exchange your dollars for bullion.
The reason isn't usually "gold, yay!"; it's proposed as a means of controlling inflation by tying money to something governments cannot manipulate (e.g. scarce physical matter). Bitcoins are usually appreciated by the same crowd, for the same reason, because governments cannot manipulate maths either.
Both can be true. If the price of energy goes up, people are going to start looking at alternative ways of spending less, that may not have been economical in the past. As power costs ramp up, the time it takes for the cost of insulation to pay for itself drops, making it more attractive.
The production figures in this article are all given as percentages of demand - not the actual amount generated. There's two reasons Germany could suddenly be producing an excess of energy: supply has increased, or demand has dropped. A quick Google shows German production has dropped 6% in the period 2004-12 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... ).
So the reason isn't that Germany's renewable plants are producing an abundance of power - it's that people are demanding less power; presumably because they cannot afford prices that are among the most expensive in the world ( http://www.contactenergy.co.nz... )
Maybe it's just me, but if a phone can't even get to the dialer to make a phone call, that's a little further from "actually working" than "almost."
A phone that can get to the dialler to make a phone call would be "working". So you're not willing to acknowledge something as "almost working" until it's actually fully functional?
And apparently, Anonymous Cowards have succumbed to ignorance.
Cloud != Desktop Remote Access.
None of the fission plants in Fukushima ever went boom.
It's about how rapidly a changeover in energy production to sustainable can occur. Germany was one of the world's biggest nuclear energy producers(France being the leader of that pack), and they've gone from that to one of the biggest solar producers in only a year or so. With a really large economy, without losing much GDP. The point that's being demonstrated is that a power infrastructure changeover can be done without sacrificing being a first world nation along the way.
This is exactly the sort of response the OP's post is pre-empting. Germany hasn't suddenly changed their energy production to solar. For the vast majority of the year, they've changed it to coal. On occasion, they generate 50% of their power from solar. On average, they generate a tiny fraction of that (5% was bandied around upthread; have no idea from where that number was sourced though), with coal picking up the load.
The OPs point is that people like you shouldn't point to single instances of non-representative power generation, and then claim it's a revolution in solar power.
Oh, and the price of that power is triple that of energy in the US.
Your definition of "significant" seems to be pretty low-bar, especially when talking about the human species as a whole - as opposed to, say, a small community in one of the least populated states of a single country.
We, the most adaptable species the earth has ever produced (if measured by how fast we can move into previously inhospitable environments) are still feeling significant effects from global climate change.
We are? Name one.
It's a good thing that the prisoners rights were respected, regardless of the problem being an IT one at root.
It's a bad thing that an IT problem is causing cops to be unable to file paperwork that would result in proper processing of prisoners