Evidently, saving energy to these people is a lower priority than finding a job closer to home, or a home closer to the job. That's what my post was about: saving energy is a pretty low priority to most people because they are unwilling to even pick the low hanging fruit, which includes (but is not limited to) using public transport, using a bike, or using a fuel efficient car.
This isn't low-hanging fruit - this is a serious change for a lot of people. Low-hanging fruit would be changing your light bulbs, or turning off the lights more often, or using a pot lid when you boil water. Changing jobs or homes doesn't count.
The same people are feeling so good about fitting CF lights - yet they could save more energy in a week than all the light bulbs in their house in a year simply by commuting in something like a Volkswagen TDi instead of a giant Chevy Silverado.
You really don't seem to know what "low-hanging fruit" means. It means that it's the easiest things you can do to save energy, not the ones that will yield the biggest energy savings. This means that if you want people to do something, you'd better make it worth the trouble. Cities have to be designed better to allow for mass transit to be more efficient.
Just look around you - look how many gigantic vehicles are on the road in Dallas, often with just the driver.
Having a giant SUV for many people is a matter of safety - you can't control what cars other people drive, only your own. And if having a bigger car greatly increases one's odds of walking away from an accident alive, then that's the smart move. (I don't drive one, personally)
I'd love to be able to use the train/buses to get to work in back - it would save me a lot of money and stress on the road. But it's not worth a three hour a day commute.
Most people can probably save more energy by using a bicycle or public transport to get to work and back instead of driving their car - things that are cheap (certainly in the case of the bicycle) and exist right now.
They can't where I live. Many, many people in Dallas live a good distance from their work, and have to travel over the highway, so biking simply isn't an option. Public transport would at least triple my commute (from 30 minutes to an hour and a half, each way), even though DART has a bus that stops right at the front of the building.
When cars aren't nearly so much more flexible than public transport, you'll get more people using them.
Don't just quietly leave, explain clearly why you are leaving. You like the job and the pay is fine, but there is too much internal bullshit to make the job worthwhile. When Billg says "That's the dumbest idea I've heard..." respond by saying "You are wrong, it is an excellent idea. Your criticism is niether constructive, nor professional. I will be taking my ideas elsewhere." Then immediately leave the room, perhaps the building.
Personally, I don't like to help such people with actual useful advice, even if they won't take it. I'd prefer to leave them wondering why I left. Let someone else take their abuse for telling them why they're wrong, and if no one else will, so much the better.
Hmm... it's not entirely without value to check a rough draft. The simple and sad fact is that with standards in high schools and universities having slipped as far as they have, an increasing number of students don't actually have a firm idea of what plagiarism actually constitutes, the harm it does and the consequences it can bring.
Very very true.
I recently had my students (first year community college class) submit a rough draft of their research paper so that I could check it.
Only five or so of them even had any form of Works Cited page. Several of them thought that they could simply include the URL of the source they used as a citation (often in inappropriate places).
The very first paper I graded was text from two web pages pasted together in succession, with the URL following each section - and nothing else. No original writing on the student's part at all.
If you're trying to cheat, you don't include the URL of the web page you're completely ripping off.
I'm not commenting on how they're created, just that they have to put on a show that the general public of the country has a say in how things are run (whether they really do or not). They can't simply claim something like the Divine Right of Kings and say that the will of the people doesn't matter.
Don't nearly all dictatorships at least have sham elections?
In other words, don't so many people believe that they should have a say in how things are run that even the worst tyrants have to at least pretend that they listen to the people?
This guy was clearing almost $2,000 a week at the peak for a couple years, now he has to get a job. He said he enjoyed fast cars and a nice house - where does the money always go? Why can't people be satisfied with a nice new but still economical honda or something when they make it big? Why always blow it out on frivolous shit?
The US made a choice not to be capitalist with this little thing called "The New Deal". It basically was a way to deal with the centralization of wealth by nationalizing collective bargaining trade unions. This was done to avoid the alternative, genuine capitalism, in which there is a use fee paid for property rights as the primary source of government revenue.
Actually, it was done to prevent the opposite - communist revolution, which more and more poor people thought was the correct solution, and that capitalism had played itself out.
Generally responsibility isn't the issue. What these people usually mean when they say "You are responsible for your own life" is that nobody else is going to bail you out, or stand up for you. You have to do it yourself, no matter how unjust your treatment is.
The general rule for payback is seven years. If you aren't prepared to pay in advance for that long I guess don't do it but you will get 20 to 25 years of free power so you do the numbers.
Or get a home equity loan if the numbers work out so that you're saving money right away. You yourself won't have to pay a large upfront cost, and you'll simply be saving money right away.
Most people here in America are soo freaking lazy that they drive (burning the fossil fuels) anywhere if its more than 50 feet away. It's not exxon killing the earth, it's the "convenience of not having to walk more than 50 feet at a time if I don't have to" attitude that's killiing the earth.
No, it's the "It's too dangerous to cross a major road because drivers won't stop for pedestrians, so I have to drive anywhere further than 50 feet to protect myself" problem that's killing the earth.
Why bother with a veto when a signing statement is essentially a veto that cannot be overturned?
Even worse - should signing statements actually be approved of by the courts, it means that the executive branch gets all the powers of the legislative branch, except for the ability to create a bill in the first place (the president could rewrite it to say what he wants, but he has to have an actual bill in front of him first).
Imagine the potential for abuse of the 13th. Of course, it is already happening; people who are not criminals, but merely victims of government abuse, are in prison and are in fact doing slave labor for the government as part of that abuse.
If you want to call picking trash off the side of the road slavery.
It's not the activity that's important, it's whether you have a choice in the matter.
Heh, I had similar problems with Knights of the Old Republic. I couldn't get very far as a Dark Side character, because I had an actual choice as to whether I was good or evil.
Slashdot Mirror
You really don't seem to know what "low-hanging fruit" means. It means that it's the easiest things you can do to save energy, not the ones that will yield the biggest energy savings. This means that if you want people to do something, you'd better make it worth the trouble. Cities have to be designed better to allow for mass transit to be more efficient. Having a giant SUV for many people is a matter of safety - you can't control what cars other people drive, only your own. And if having a bigger car greatly increases one's odds of walking away from an accident alive, then that's the smart move. (I don't drive one, personally) I'd love to be able to use the train/buses to get to work in back - it would save me a lot of money and stress on the road. But it's not worth a three hour a day commute.
When cars aren't nearly so much more flexible than public transport, you'll get more people using them.
I recently had my students (first year community college class) submit a rough draft of their research paper so that I could check it.
Only five or so of them even had any form of Works Cited page. Several of them thought that they could simply include the URL of the source they used as a citation (often in inappropriate places).
The very first paper I graded was text from two web pages pasted together in succession, with the URL following each section - and nothing else. No original writing on the student's part at all.
If you're trying to cheat, you don't include the URL of the web page you're completely ripping off.
I'm not commenting on how they're created, just that they have to put on a show that the general public of the country has a say in how things are run (whether they really do or not). They can't simply claim something like the Divine Right of Kings and say that the will of the people doesn't matter.
Don't nearly all dictatorships at least have sham elections?
In other words, don't so many people believe that they should have a say in how things are run that even the worst tyrants have to at least pretend that they listen to the people?
He continually threatens to go full Republican to get the Democrats to cater to him, and he's the deciding vote on many things.
Catch 22 says you don't have to show anyone Catch 22.
Oh, don't worry about that.
They'll be automating those jobs away soon.
Essentially, FDR destroyed capitalism to save it.
Funny, the college I work for tells its students that there are all these great, high-paying jobs just waiting for them right out of college.
It's a community college, btw.
Ok! We'll just tear down all the cities and rebuild them with mass transport in mind!
Generally responsibility isn't the issue. What these people usually mean when they say "You are responsible for your own life" is that nobody else is going to bail you out, or stand up for you. You have to do it yourself, no matter how unjust your treatment is.
Or get a home equity loan if the numbers work out so that you're saving money right away. You yourself won't have to pay a large upfront cost, and you'll simply be saving money right away.
Why bother with a veto when a signing statement is essentially a veto that cannot be overturned?
Even worse - should signing statements actually be approved of by the courts, it means that the executive branch gets all the powers of the legislative branch, except for the ability to create a bill in the first place (the president could rewrite it to say what he wants, but he has to have an actual bill in front of him first).
There's exactly one way in which the courts should view these signing statements:
"The signing statement is evidence of the president's intent to violate the law."
Actually, lawyers do quite often.
As always, the Internet knows all.
Learn How to Pass (or Beat) a Polygraph Test
Heh, I had similar problems with Knights of the Old Republic. I couldn't get very far as a Dark Side character, because I had an actual choice as to whether I was good or evil.
She'd likely be one of the ones replaced as well.
Actually many times getting nothing would be less insulting.