Re:We can all breathe a bit easier
on
Chinese Eco-Cities
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I'm saying that if you have 1 country with 300 million people, who all drive SUVs, Turn their heat up to 25 degrees in the winter, and their airconditions down to 15 degrees in the summer, as well as leaving all their incandescent light bulbs on 24 hours a day, then they are going to produce much more pollution than a country of 1.2 billion who mostly don't own cars, don't have air conditioners or heaters, and don't have all that many lights to turn on. I'm pretty sure the earth could support 30 billion people if we didn't generate the amount of pollution we currently do. We have created some good things like treating sewage, but most of the inventions of the last 100 years have reeked havoc on the environment.
Re:We can all breathe a bit easier
on
Chinese Eco-Cities
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Is china actually that bad of a polluter? Let's talk per capita. Because that's really what matters. China has 1.2 billion people, of course it produces a lot of pollution. The question is, does it produce more or less pollution per capita than other nations? A lot of people in china live in rural areas, and many people live simple lives, without cars, or electricity, or other amenities that generally cause pollution. Whereas, in more developed countries, everyone has cars, and electricity, and uses ungodly amounts of water. Are there any studies that have been done that show that China is actually polluting more than it should be for it's population?
Well yes, I'm a nintendo fan myself, since they seem to be the only ones interested in making fun games, and not about selling billions of units. Oddly enough, they were the ones consistently turning a profit. The only thing that's kiddy about most nintendo games is that they use cartoon graphics. I find cartoon graphics better anyway. It makes me more into the game because I start using my imagination. When the graphics look like real life, I fell more like an outside observer, watching a TV show, or a news cast of some sort.
A system that works in Canada is that if your party doesn't win, you still get to have a few seats in parliament if you won any jurisdictions at all. I think that it would have a profound effect in the states, where there are "Red" and "Blue" states. The states that end up voting for the losing part get 4 years of not having their voice heard. In Canada, if your area votes in the losing party, your representative still gets to sit in parliament and speak their views.
Maybe they should limit people from driving around indoors in public places. Oh, never mind, that isn't a problem. Smoking outdoors isn't a problem. smoking indoors where the smoke doesn't have anywhere to go is the problem. People are always afraid that businesses will have to shut down if smokers can't go. Instead, you see businesses actually doing about the same or better, because non smokers enjoy going out more. When they enacted non smoking laws where I live, I didn't see a single restaraunt or bar close due to customers not going because they couldn't smoke.
But the person working in the bar is exposed to enough smoke to make it a real health concern. So therefore there should be no smoking in the bar, because the person working there would have a real health concern. It doesn't matter if the patrons get any ill effects, what matters is for those who go there every day, trying to earn a living.
I don't understand the public parks thing, but i've never heard of a city banning smoking anywhere outdoor, except for X feet from a hospital entrance. As far as bars go, sure, you don't go there often enough for it to have any effect on your health. However, the people that work there 8+ hours a day are around the smoke enough for it to be a health problem. I know a lot of people say that it's their choice to work in an environment with so much smoke, but the point is, is that it shouldn't be a choice. It's important that your workplace is safe. There's laws saying that your work place has to meet certain safety standards. Having to inhale smoke all day fall way below most safety standards.
Along with the other poster here, The original GC was purple. Not the best selling color. Now that they got platinum, it's much more attractive. Also I think that most people would classify Mario Kart as childish. Because the characters look like cartoons. For some reason, if something looks like a cartoon, people automatically associate it with childish, while if something looks realistic, people associate it with grown-up. This is true no matter how much better the graphics are in the cartoony game over the "real" looking game.
Assuming they got rid of all the tar and carbon monoxide, they'd have to leave the nicotine in it to keep people smoking it. Nicotine is toxic, and not good for you. In small doses like in cigarettes, it won't kill you, but if you see someone who hasn't had their nicotine in the past while, then you know just how badly it can effect people.
Actually, I was under the impression that the United States had handed its welfare system over to a private company. Lockheed Martin if I recall correctly? Anyway, the reason most government services exist is because the initial capital needed to create these systems is outside the realm of for profit coporations. Sure the utilities and phone companies are good now, but what about when the first started out. The initial infrastructure costs would have bankrupted any company that tried to complete these tasks. Same thing goes for the highway/postal system. Say what you will about government organizations, but remember this. They are running stuff that nobody else could run, because they are just too expensive to get going, and there is very little incentive. The phone companies are only doing fine now that the initial infrastructure is there. They can't invest in new infrastructure, which is why there's no broadband internet in may parts of the US, even though they have a pretty high population density.
You don't even see the point. If your school sells the books for 93.75, then students could sell it directly to other students for $90.00, or $80, or even $65, and they would still be getting more than the book store would give them, assuming they sold it before the exam. Which is a pretty bad idea, considering you'll probably need that text to study from. With a $30 differential between what the book store is selling the book for, and what the bookstore is buying the books for, you can bet there will be a lot of students not going through the book store. If they split that down the middle at $15 each, it's worth it for both of them.
Or, you could get a monitor mirror, so you can see those users creeping up before they can see anything on your monitor. Works great for the boss creeping up behind you too.
See, your problem is that you went through the middle man. Much more money can be made off used textbooks if you sell them directly to the students. If you buy it for $125, then the bookstore will buy it from you for $20, and then resell it to some other student for $75. You coul sell it for $60, or maybe even $74, because students are always willing to save money. I think that there's even some sites that facilitate you selling books online, so you don't even have to go through the trouble of making posters to advertise to students that you have books.
I'm talking about real Meat group work. Not chatting over MSN or exchanging email to get a job done. Sitting down with others going over a problem or project in real space. There is a fair amount of group work that can be done online, but it really isn't the same experience as doing it offline.
I feel the same way about academia. Luckily, I'm working with people who share a passion for knowledge and learning. I really miss the feel of school, where sitting around reading and learning all day wasn't a waste of time, and was actually what you're supposed to be doing. Often I get bored at work because i'm not learning and doing new things as often as I would have had I been in school still.
I can't believe that people think of DeVry as a real school. From what I've seen in television ads (what real school advertises on television?) it seems they are just looking to make money off people who want an education fast. You can't fast track in school, well, you can, but you have to work really hard. Going to a school that promises the same degree as a real school in 1/2 the class time means that they aren't really giving you the same level of education.
I'm not sure where you went to school, but I think that most CS degrees require that you take a few courses that aren't actually on computers. That's what the grandparent was talking about. Most universities require that you take a physical science course so that you learn about stuff other than computers.
Also, what's good about a person who does their entire degree online. They may have never worked in a group. Learning to work in a group is an important part of your education and is very important when venturing out into the real world.
You make no sense. If most people couldn't stay in business with a 9% margin, then that means that 9% margin is too much. Most businesses don't have that high of a profit margin, Dell only has 6% and they are doing fine. If their profit margin in significantly higher than their peers, than they are over charging. I'm not sure who apple has as peers though, since they mostly sell products that no one else does. That being iPods, which nobody has really done a good job at competing with, and computers that run MacOS.
But in many cases the value is only perceived. Dell products are no better than whitebox computers you pick up locally, yet Dell sells way more units. Marketing makes people think that they have to pay more, even though they are getting a product that is mostly the same. This is especially true for apple because they make their products attractive, and there's only one place to get them. If apple was letting others sell apple compatible computers they wouldn't be able to have such a high profit margin. Apple obviously makes people think there is much more value to their products than there is with dell products. How much actual difference there is in value is not something that's easy to figure out.
This is exactly where Nintendo is sitting. Nintendo will always turn a profit, and in turn, make cool products that people like. Sure sony and MS might outsell them, and make more money, but some companies are just happy knowing that they are making a good product that people enjoy, and being creative in the process. A company doesn't have to make the most profit, or sell the most units to actually be the best company.
Sure, Dell may have lower profit margins, but I can bet you their actual profit amount is much higher, as they probably have way more volume than apple. All this means is that apple is overcharging for its products. If I see 1 object for 200% of what it costs to make it, than my profit margin is quite high. However, i've only sold 1 product, and haven't managed to make very much money.
I'll pay $200 for one of these if it does simple wordprocessing and appointment scheduling. Maybe even some spreadsheets and stuff. Internet might be nice too. Maybe I should be able to buy it and they give one to some kid in a developing country, without any expense to them.
Also occuring to me is that corporations may be making donations that neither their employees nor their customers may support or even know about. Basically its a few guys at the top making decisions about what political party gets the cash. The corporation is using money they could be giving to their employees, and money that is taken from the customers to fund their own political agenda. I don't care what corporations spend their money on, so long as it's not creating laws that make them have more power than they should.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm saying that if you have 1 country with 300 million people, who all drive SUVs, Turn their heat up to 25 degrees in the winter, and their airconditions down to 15 degrees in the summer, as well as leaving all their incandescent light bulbs on 24 hours a day, then they are going to produce much more pollution than a country of 1.2 billion who mostly don't own cars, don't have air conditioners or heaters, and don't have all that many lights to turn on. I'm pretty sure the earth could support 30 billion people if we didn't generate the amount of pollution we currently do. We have created some good things like treating sewage, but most of the inventions of the last 100 years have reeked havoc on the environment.
Is china actually that bad of a polluter? Let's talk per capita. Because that's really what matters. China has 1.2 billion people, of course it produces a lot of pollution. The question is, does it produce more or less pollution per capita than other nations? A lot of people in china live in rural areas, and many people live simple lives, without cars, or electricity, or other amenities that generally cause pollution. Whereas, in more developed countries, everyone has cars, and electricity, and uses ungodly amounts of water. Are there any studies that have been done that show that China is actually polluting more than it should be for it's population?
Well yes, I'm a nintendo fan myself, since they seem to be the only ones interested in making fun games, and not about selling billions of units. Oddly enough, they were the ones consistently turning a profit. The only thing that's kiddy about most nintendo games is that they use cartoon graphics. I find cartoon graphics better anyway. It makes me more into the game because I start using my imagination. When the graphics look like real life, I fell more like an outside observer, watching a TV show, or a news cast of some sort.
A system that works in Canada is that if your party doesn't win, you still get to have a few seats in parliament if you won any jurisdictions at all. I think that it would have a profound effect in the states, where there are "Red" and "Blue" states. The states that end up voting for the losing part get 4 years of not having their voice heard. In Canada, if your area votes in the losing party, your representative still gets to sit in parliament and speak their views.
Maybe they should limit people from driving around indoors in public places. Oh, never mind, that isn't a problem. Smoking outdoors isn't a problem. smoking indoors where the smoke doesn't have anywhere to go is the problem. People are always afraid that businesses will have to shut down if smokers can't go. Instead, you see businesses actually doing about the same or better, because non smokers enjoy going out more. When they enacted non smoking laws where I live, I didn't see a single restaraunt or bar close due to customers not going because they couldn't smoke.
But the person working in the bar is exposed to enough smoke to make it a real health concern. So therefore there should be no smoking in the bar, because the person working there would have a real health concern. It doesn't matter if the patrons get any ill effects, what matters is for those who go there every day, trying to earn a living.
I don't understand the public parks thing, but i've never heard of a city banning smoking anywhere outdoor, except for X feet from a hospital entrance. As far as bars go, sure, you don't go there often enough for it to have any effect on your health. However, the people that work there 8+ hours a day are around the smoke enough for it to be a health problem. I know a lot of people say that it's their choice to work in an environment with so much smoke, but the point is, is that it shouldn't be a choice. It's important that your workplace is safe. There's laws saying that your work place has to meet certain safety standards. Having to inhale smoke all day fall way below most safety standards.
Along with the other poster here, The original GC was purple. Not the best selling color. Now that they got platinum, it's much more attractive. Also I think that most people would classify Mario Kart as childish. Because the characters look like cartoons. For some reason, if something looks like a cartoon, people automatically associate it with childish, while if something looks realistic, people associate it with grown-up. This is true no matter how much better the graphics are in the cartoony game over the "real" looking game.
Assuming they got rid of all the tar and carbon monoxide, they'd have to leave the nicotine in it to keep people smoking it. Nicotine is toxic, and not good for you. In small doses like in cigarettes, it won't kill you, but if you see someone who hasn't had their nicotine in the past while, then you know just how badly it can effect people.
Actually, I was under the impression that the United States had handed its welfare system over to a private company. Lockheed Martin if I recall correctly? Anyway, the reason most government services exist is because the initial capital needed to create these systems is outside the realm of for profit coporations. Sure the utilities and phone companies are good now, but what about when the first started out. The initial infrastructure costs would have bankrupted any company that tried to complete these tasks. Same thing goes for the highway/postal system. Say what you will about government organizations, but remember this. They are running stuff that nobody else could run, because they are just too expensive to get going, and there is very little incentive. The phone companies are only doing fine now that the initial infrastructure is there. They can't invest in new infrastructure, which is why there's no broadband internet in may parts of the US, even though they have a pretty high population density.
You don't even see the point. If your school sells the books for 93.75, then students could sell it directly to other students for $90.00, or $80, or even $65, and they would still be getting more than the book store would give them, assuming they sold it before the exam. Which is a pretty bad idea, considering you'll probably need that text to study from. With a $30 differential between what the book store is selling the book for, and what the bookstore is buying the books for, you can bet there will be a lot of students not going through the book store. If they split that down the middle at $15 each, it's worth it for both of them.
Just make sure you GPG encrypt everything that you put on their servers. Use a 4096 or 8192 bit key to be extra sure they can't get at the data.
Or, you could get a monitor mirror, so you can see those users creeping up before they can see anything on your monitor. Works great for the boss creeping up behind you too.
I think I heard once that only old koreans use newsgroups and mailing lists.
See, your problem is that you went through the middle man. Much more money can be made off used textbooks if you sell them directly to the students. If you buy it for $125, then the bookstore will buy it from you for $20, and then resell it to some other student for $75. You coul sell it for $60, or maybe even $74, because students are always willing to save money. I think that there's even some sites that facilitate you selling books online, so you don't even have to go through the trouble of making posters to advertise to students that you have books.
I'm talking about real Meat group work. Not chatting over MSN or exchanging email to get a job done. Sitting down with others going over a problem or project in real space. There is a fair amount of group work that can be done online, but it really isn't the same experience as doing it offline.
I feel the same way about academia. Luckily, I'm working with people who share a passion for knowledge and learning. I really miss the feel of school, where sitting around reading and learning all day wasn't a waste of time, and was actually what you're supposed to be doing. Often I get bored at work because i'm not learning and doing new things as often as I would have had I been in school still.
I can't believe that people think of DeVry as a real school. From what I've seen in television ads (what real school advertises on television?) it seems they are just looking to make money off people who want an education fast. You can't fast track in school, well, you can, but you have to work really hard. Going to a school that promises the same degree as a real school in 1/2 the class time means that they aren't really giving you the same level of education.
I'm not sure where you went to school, but I think that most CS degrees require that you take a few courses that aren't actually on computers. That's what the grandparent was talking about. Most universities require that you take a physical science course so that you learn about stuff other than computers.
Also, what's good about a person who does their entire degree online. They may have never worked in a group. Learning to work in a group is an important part of your education and is very important when venturing out into the real world.
You make no sense. If most people couldn't stay in business with a 9% margin, then that means that 9% margin is too much. Most businesses don't have that high of a profit margin, Dell only has 6% and they are doing fine. If their profit margin in significantly higher than their peers, than they are over charging. I'm not sure who apple has as peers though, since they mostly sell products that no one else does. That being iPods, which nobody has really done a good job at competing with, and computers that run MacOS.
But in many cases the value is only perceived. Dell products are no better than whitebox computers you pick up locally, yet Dell sells way more units. Marketing makes people think that they have to pay more, even though they are getting a product that is mostly the same. This is especially true for apple because they make their products attractive, and there's only one place to get them. If apple was letting others sell apple compatible computers they wouldn't be able to have such a high profit margin. Apple obviously makes people think there is much more value to their products than there is with dell products. How much actual difference there is in value is not something that's easy to figure out.
This is exactly where Nintendo is sitting. Nintendo will always turn a profit, and in turn, make cool products that people like. Sure sony and MS might outsell them, and make more money, but some companies are just happy knowing that they are making a good product that people enjoy, and being creative in the process. A company doesn't have to make the most profit, or sell the most units to actually be the best company.
Sure, Dell may have lower profit margins, but I can bet you their actual profit amount is much higher, as they probably have way more volume than apple. All this means is that apple is overcharging for its products. If I see 1 object for 200% of what it costs to make it, than my profit margin is quite high. However, i've only sold 1 product, and haven't managed to make very much money.
I'll pay $200 for one of these if it does simple wordprocessing and appointment scheduling. Maybe even some spreadsheets and stuff. Internet might be nice too. Maybe I should be able to buy it and they give one to some kid in a developing country, without any expense to them.
Also occuring to me is that corporations may be making donations that neither their employees nor their customers may support or even know about. Basically its a few guys at the top making decisions about what political party gets the cash. The corporation is using money they could be giving to their employees, and money that is taken from the customers to fund their own political agenda. I don't care what corporations spend their money on, so long as it's not creating laws that make them have more power than they should.