There's some pretty good volume estimates based on declassified sonar maps from the cold war, volume is now roughly 1/5th of what it was when I was born in the late 50's.
The market does not assume the rules, it IS the rules.
A "market" is not a building, it's a set of rules governing trade, therefore a market free of regulation is an oxymoron.
If anyone can play the market then it's a "free" market.
Yep, a lot of bad management comes from the fact that people project their own morals and behaviour onto others. It normally mellows with age and experience, but sometimes it hardens and you end up becoming just another scrooge.
At the end of the day the number of hours you work needs to be enough to keep the company profitable and everyone employed. If you're young and ambitious, then working long hours for a unprofitable company is a dead end career path, so much so that by the time you're 40 you want to get out of the industry. I saw that as the path back to the blue collar hell I came from. At 55 I can claim with some credibility that I successfully avoided it. My contract says 37.5hr/w, I'm very flexible but insist that any variance in hours is an (unpaid) two way street. I prefer to work from home and manage tasks via email but I also realise regular human contact is required 2-3 times a week just to keep the 25-30 people in our playground on "the same page". Meetings can be demoralising, but not as demoralising as beavering away for a week or two on something that will never be used.
Baby boomer here. The word you were looking for is "won't", not "can't". The only reason you work for 100hrs and get paid for 40hr is because your still too young to tell the boss "no" and remain employed. Also at your age I had a real job out at sea that involved heavy manual labour and 35hr shifts with a 30min break every 5hrs. Now go do something useful and stop bragging about how you're being ripped off by the boss, it makes you look silly.
They know they can find another desperate person off the street who will work 12 hours/day for a paycheck.
Sure you can grab someone else but as someone who has hired more than a few developer's I must say I've never seen anyone come up to speed in a dev job in under 3months. More often it's 6 months before they know enough to be useful.
Churning devs to find those desperate enough to put up with that sort of crap will hurt the company a lot more than it will hurt the individual devs. Tell the boss why you're leaving and tell all your co-workers too. They may not agree that the ship is sinking but they will remember your warning when it does.
There are plenty of reasons to plant trees, but they can only ever play a minor global role as a carbon sink, even if you plant fast growing softwoods and bamboo, there simply isn't anywhere near enough unused space left on the planet to cope with our emissions.
The maths is simple, the Earth's life support systems can "scrub" about 2-3Gt of worth of carbon emission/year, we currently emit 10-12Gt/yr. Considering trees are not the largest carbon sink in the system, increasing forested area is a GoodThing(TM) but it's not a silver bullet wrt AGW. I like the idea of carbon credits, but to obtain them you should be able to point to a block of sequestered carbon, it it's much too difficult to measure what a living forest emits/absorbs to know what effect it is having as a living carbon sink. For example many types of forests (including the amazon) actually emit a net excess of CO2 when stressed by drought.
Bring whatever the hell you like, if you can make a self-sustaining bio-dome capable of supporting a human for more than a year then you have solved an engineering problem that has stumped the best minds on the planet for well over half a century.
Pollution is best defined as a "resource out of place", the carbon cycle has been the "thermostat" in Earth's changing climate for at least the last half billion years. We are short circuiting that cycle in a significant way by excavating the carbon resource and concentrating it in the atmosphere where it does not belong and has been shown beyond all reasonable doubt to have a detrimental effect on civilization. The algae will be just fine with or without our civilization, it's we who need then, not the other way around.
As a species we are pushing the biosphere further and further away from it's natural equilibrium, at some point it will be far enough away that it can no longer support our civilizations, push it further and it will no longer support large land mammals (including us). Science is definitely the best tool we have for these problems, but you're going to need a lot more than a lamp and a bucket of allege to create artificial life support systems capable of replacing the natural ones we evolved within.
If you think that this is all in the far flung future, realise that the worst drought on record in the fertile crescent (2007-2009) has been identified as href="https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=cr#q=syrian+drought+war">a major contributing factor that led to the civil war in Styria. The rural areas ran out of water and migrated to the cities (10% of the population was internally displaced). Food prices skyrocketed (across the middle east, not just Syria). The WL diplomatic cables basically showed that US diplomats saw the trouble coming when people started abandoning their farms, one even pinpointed the city where the war started as being as being the most likely "flashpoint for internal conflict".
Never forget that civilization is much more fragile than the biosphere from which it arose, it can be eradicated with three days of hunger or one day of thirst.
Environmentalists will always find a way to hate on humans, no matter how many of their "problems" you solve. Nothing short of mass human suicide will ever appease them. They'll just find some new corporate boogeyman to bitch about.
Corporations will always find a way to hate on humans, no matter how many of their "problems" you solve. Nothing short of mass human suicide will ever appease them. They'll just find some new environmental boogeyman to bitch about.
The bulk of the CO2 emissions coming from the concrete industry are due to the fact that when concrete sets it undergoes an exothermic chemical reaction that emits large quantities of CO2.
Concrete releases heat and CO2 when it cures, it's the largest non-FF source. Just ploughing charcoal into farmland will sequester it for at least a 1000yrs and it improves the soil to boot! If scaled up properly it wouldn't sequester all our emission but it would make a good start. You can get the charcoal (and more energy that it takes to to make it) from burning raw sewerage.
Speaking of Australia and conservative messages. One of the first acts of our newly elected conservative government was to remove the cabinet position of "Minister for Science", the new PM ( a self confessed psuedo-skeptic) has absorbed it into the industry portfolio. It's the first time since the 1930's Australia has not had a Minister for Science. The message is loud and clear, Science is a tool for bussiness, it's not a tool for environmental management and it's certainly not an impotant subject worthy of a minister, like say, the Minister for sport.
part of that is because it took Murdoch longer to penetrate and take over enough of the Canadian media
Actually Rupert has been synonomous with Aussie/UK newspapers since he busted the Fleet St unions in the 80's. If there's a recent shift then the Aussie shift has been the slowest since Canada and the UK have had conservative governments for a while now, whilst we've only just flipped the government a couple of weeks ago. We also have coss-media rules, meaning that since Rupert controls most of the Aussie print media, he is automatically banned from owning a significant portion of radio or TV. Their main print rival is Fairfax (Age/SMH) who (surprisingly) gave their editorial vote to the conservatives this time around. The only significant publisher to give the left the thumbs up was (oddly) "Bussiness week".
We also have our own rat pack of rich independent miners headed up by the world's richest spoilt brat, Gina Reinheart. Rupert just prints whatever keeps his customers happy, and here in Oz independent miners are amoungst his biggest customers. For example "Australia's most popular column" is written by a mining shill who goes by the name of Andrew Bolt, sort of a right wing "shock jock" who can write with something other than a crayon. Murdoch doesn't actually agree with many of Bolt outrageous propoganda. Bolt is Gina's personal mouthpiece, Rupert keeps him on the payroll because Gina pays the bill. Gina loves him so much that she bought him his own Sunday show on channel 10. She also tried to buy herself a seat on the board of Fairfax but she failed the board's "character test".
The same sort of lies were spread about smoking and cancer, the same (for hire) lobby groups were writing and distributing the anti-science propaganda. They dragged the tobacco CEO's into congress for a grilling. At the end of the day they were fined $500M, but still not enough to put them out of business and certainly no jail time for what was nothing short of fraud. The coal industry is an economic superpower compared to tobacco, they have been successfully fighting emission controls for over a century. They will not retire gracefully.
If you want clarity in climate science then try browsing the articles on realclimate. Of course you could just read the IPCC reports, they are easy to find on the net too.
As a programmer who lived through this time, it was absolutely inconceivable you would build a system to sell something and have it just sell-and-ship with no confirmation
In the same vein, jumping out of a tenth story building can cure a headache. Just because it's was deemed to be a bad idea by "people skilled in the art" does not make it any less obvious.
One click obviousness test: Why were cookies invented in the first place?
Understand that a "market" in the economic sense is defined as a set of rules that governs trade, the most basic of those rules is property rights. What the "free" bit means is that nobody is excluded by the rules, anyone can "play" the market. Now go back and read your own post using those definitions.
The "free" bit does not mean "free of regulation" (as Fox news would have you believe), such an interpretation is an oxymoron when you use the proper definition of "market".
Slashdot Mirror
The name change isn't due for a few centuries, astronomers still think it's funny.
There's some pretty good volume estimates based on declassified sonar maps from the cold war, volume is now roughly 1/5th of what it was when I was born in the late 50's.
Since when has a retail electricity supplier ever needed an excuse to jack up prices? Excuses are for losers like you.
The market does not assume the rules, it IS the rules.
A "market" is not a building, it's a set of rules governing trade, therefore a market free of regulation is an oxymoron.
If anyone can play the market then it's a "free" market.
Spiral arms are shock waves. The stars themselves don't move with the wave, they are created by it.
Yep, a lot of bad management comes from the fact that people project their own morals and behaviour onto others. It normally mellows with age and experience, but sometimes it hardens and you end up becoming just another scrooge.
At the end of the day the number of hours you work needs to be enough to keep the company profitable and everyone employed. If you're young and ambitious, then working long hours for a unprofitable company is a dead end career path, so much so that by the time you're 40 you want to get out of the industry. I saw that as the path back to the blue collar hell I came from. At 55 I can claim with some credibility that I successfully avoided it. My contract says 37.5hr/w, I'm very flexible but insist that any variance in hours is an (unpaid) two way street. I prefer to work from home and manage tasks via email but I also realise regular human contact is required 2-3 times a week just to keep the 25-30 people in our playground on "the same page". Meetings can be demoralising, but not as demoralising as beavering away for a week or two on something that will never be used.
than you're fixing, it's time to go home.
Note to self - fuck up the first task on Monday morning.
Baby boomer here. The word you were looking for is "won't", not "can't". The only reason you work for 100hrs and get paid for 40hr is because your still too young to tell the boss "no" and remain employed. Also at your age I had a real job out at sea that involved heavy manual labour and 35hr shifts with a 30min break every 5hrs. Now go do something useful and stop bragging about how you're being ripped off by the boss, it makes you look silly.
Good managers or team leads will make sure their coders are not distracted.
Yes, a good manager shields his team from the rest of the company.
They know they can find another desperate person off the street who will work 12 hours/day for a paycheck.
Sure you can grab someone else but as someone who has hired more than a few developer's I must say I've never seen anyone come up to speed in a dev job in under 3months. More often it's 6 months before they know enough to be useful.
Churning devs to find those desperate enough to put up with that sort of crap will hurt the company a lot more than it will hurt the individual devs. Tell the boss why you're leaving and tell all your co-workers too. They may not agree that the ship is sinking but they will remember your warning when it does.
There are plenty of reasons to plant trees, but they can only ever play a minor global role as a carbon sink, even if you plant fast growing softwoods and bamboo, there simply isn't anywhere near enough unused space left on the planet to cope with our emissions.
The maths is simple, the Earth's life support systems can "scrub" about 2-3Gt of worth of carbon emission/year, we currently emit 10-12Gt/yr. Considering trees are not the largest carbon sink in the system, increasing forested area is a GoodThing(TM) but it's not a silver bullet wrt AGW. I like the idea of carbon credits, but to obtain them you should be able to point to a block of sequestered carbon, it it's much too difficult to measure what a living forest emits/absorbs to know what effect it is having as a living carbon sink. For example many types of forests (including the amazon) actually emit a net excess of CO2 when stressed by drought.
Bring whatever the hell you like, if you can make a self-sustaining bio-dome capable of supporting a human for more than a year then you have solved an engineering problem that has stumped the best minds on the planet for well over half a century.
Pollution is best defined as a "resource out of place", the carbon cycle has been the "thermostat" in Earth's changing climate for at least the last half billion years. We are short circuiting that cycle in a significant way by excavating the carbon resource and concentrating it in the atmosphere where it does not belong and has been shown beyond all reasonable doubt to have a detrimental effect on civilization. The algae will be just fine with or without our civilization, it's we who need then, not the other way around.
As a species we are pushing the biosphere further and further away from it's natural equilibrium, at some point it will be far enough away that it can no longer support our civilizations, push it further and it will no longer support large land mammals (including us). Science is definitely the best tool we have for these problems, but you're going to need a lot more than a lamp and a bucket of allege to create artificial life support systems capable of replacing the natural ones we evolved within.
If you think that this is all in the far flung future, realise that the worst drought on record in the fertile crescent (2007-2009) has been identified as href="https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=cr#q=syrian+drought+war">a major contributing factor that led to the civil war in Styria. The rural areas ran out of water and migrated to the cities (10% of the population was internally displaced). Food prices skyrocketed (across the middle east, not just Syria). The WL diplomatic cables basically showed that US diplomats saw the trouble coming when people started abandoning their farms, one even pinpointed the city where the war started as being as being the most likely "flashpoint for internal conflict".
Never forget that civilization is much more fragile than the biosphere from which it arose, it can be eradicated with three days of hunger or one day of thirst.
Environmentalists will always find a way to hate on humans, no matter how many of their "problems" you solve. Nothing short of mass human suicide will ever appease them. They'll just find some new corporate boogeyman to bitch about.
Corporations will always find a way to hate on humans, no matter how many of their "problems" you solve. Nothing short of mass human suicide will ever appease them. They'll just find some new environmental boogeyman to bitch about.
Pointless, no?
help society be more aware of their impact
Smelly snowballs and yellow snow were not enough, huh?
The bulk of the CO2 emissions coming from the concrete industry are due to the fact that when concrete sets it undergoes an exothermic chemical reaction that emits large quantities of CO2.
Concrete releases heat and CO2 when it cures, it's the largest non-FF source. Just ploughing charcoal into farmland will sequester it for at least a 1000yrs and it improves the soil to boot! If scaled up properly it wouldn't sequester all our emission but it would make a good start. You can get the charcoal (and more energy that it takes to to make it) from burning raw sewerage.
95% of adults living on this planet firmly believe in an afterlife.
Title is obviously some sort of Fraudian slip on my part...
part of that is because it took Murdoch longer to penetrate and take over enough of the Canadian media
Actually Rupert has been synonomous with Aussie/UK newspapers since he busted the Fleet St unions in the 80's. If there's a recent shift then the Aussie shift has been the slowest since Canada and the UK have had conservative governments for a while now, whilst we've only just flipped the government a couple of weeks ago. We also have coss-media rules, meaning that since Rupert controls most of the Aussie print media, he is automatically banned from owning a significant portion of radio or TV. Their main print rival is Fairfax (Age/SMH) who (surprisingly) gave their editorial vote to the conservatives this time around. The only significant publisher to give the left the thumbs up was (oddly) "Bussiness week".
We also have our own rat pack of rich independent miners headed up by the world's richest spoilt brat, Gina Reinheart. Rupert just prints whatever keeps his customers happy, and here in Oz independent miners are amoungst his biggest customers. For example "Australia's most popular column" is written by a mining shill who goes by the name of Andrew Bolt, sort of a right wing "shock jock" who can write with something other than a crayon. Murdoch doesn't actually agree with many of Bolt outrageous propoganda. Bolt is Gina's personal mouthpiece, Rupert keeps him on the payroll because Gina pays the bill. Gina loves him so much that she bought him his own Sunday show on channel 10. She also tried to buy herself a seat on the board of Fairfax but she failed the board's "character test".
The same sort of lies were spread about smoking and cancer, the same (for hire) lobby groups were writing and distributing the anti-science propaganda. They dragged the tobacco CEO's into congress for a grilling. At the end of the day they were fined $500M, but still not enough to put them out of business and certainly no jail time for what was nothing short of fraud. The coal industry is an economic superpower compared to tobacco, they have been successfully fighting emission controls for over a century. They will not retire gracefully.
If you want clarity in climate science then try browsing the articles on realclimate. Of course you could just read the IPCC reports, they are easy to find on the net too.
Primary sources, do us all a favour and start using them!
As a programmer who lived through this time, it was absolutely inconceivable you would build a system to sell something and have it just sell-and-ship with no confirmation
In the same vein, jumping out of a tenth story building can cure a headache. Just because it's was deemed to be a bad idea by "people skilled in the art" does not make it any less obvious.
One click obviousness test: Why were cookies invented in the first place?
Understand that a "market" in the economic sense is defined as a set of rules that governs trade, the most basic of those rules is property rights. What the "free" bit means is that nobody is excluded by the rules, anyone can "play" the market. Now go back and read your own post using those definitions.
The "free" bit does not mean "free of regulation" (as Fox news would have you believe), such an interpretation is an oxymoron when you use the proper definition of "market".