AAPL was selling for about $90 last october. Looked at it lately? If that is shooting itself in the foot then perhaps more companies should learn the trick.
One of the missions of the military is to secure access to oil as a point of national security. This has been going on since the 50s at least, and is one of the chief reasons we helped to remove a democratically elected leader in Iran and prop up the Shah. The consequence of this about 20 years later was the revolt and rise to power of the Ayatollah.
If we were not dependent on oil in the middle east we would not have bases in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq, and Kuwait to name a few. I don't know if you are trolling or not, but to claim that the military and other subsidies are directly going to oil is absurd. I have posted many links to spending bills in the past that earmark billions to subsidizing oil, all easily found via "google".
This crap is already costing you shitloads of money, as well as shitloads of liberty. I don't know what your agenda is, but mine is freedom and liberty both personal and financial.
Probably wasting bits on an A/C but better technology needs government help because oil is getting massive government help (starting with the military). The playing field needs to be leveled.
The point you are missing is that this does not need to use farmland. It will actually work best in the deserts of SW US, like New Mexico, where there are large aquifers that contain brackish (non-potable) water. The process may even end up purifying some of the water through condensation in the clear bio reactors.
It all sounds great until you realize that we are at war and have standing armies in a whole bunch of other countries because of oil. If we can find a way to produce a fuel that means we don't need to import oil, then we can bring the troops home, close up a bunch of foreign bases and save a lot of taxpayer money. Those holes you speak of are nothing compared to the social^W corporate welfare rat-hole that is the military-industrial complex.
The biofuels that are discussed in the article are algae based, so they don't use potable water, don't displace food crops, are carbon neutral (especially if the CO2 is taken directly from the atmosphere, which in the low-tech solutions it is), and are not dependent on the middle east. So, what are the problems again?
Or if it stops being true. This graph shows the data from 1880. While it does look like the last 8 or so years have been a down-tick, that's only relative to the local maxima. Not saying this proves global warming as man made, but it certainly makes the argument that we are cooling look a little obtuse.
Agreed. The lay user will only be able to meaningfully participate in early design phases (think requirements) and then again in testing (especially UI testing). It seems to me that they already have the ability to participate in these ways. Any attempt at involvement in the architecture design surely would only hinder good software practices.
Heat does not rise, it moves to colder areas (trying to be in equilibrium). Fluids move differently due to temperature. You are oversimplifying to the point of being just plain wrong.
I stand corrected, I thought that since 1999 we ran a surplus until 2003, though it seems that perhaps that was due to the amazing rectal-cranial inversion. It does seem though that Iraq helped to spin us out of control, but we were already spiraling down thanks to the NASDAQ bubble bursting (anyone remember MicroStrategies? kind of the precursor to Enron). Without the nation building in Iraq I maintain that TARP funds would not have been needed today, as war generally bleeds money out of the economy that will never be recouped.
I fail to see how I am hell bent on anything or accusing you of being mentally imbalanced. I simply made a comment or observation, preambled with "not to flame" so that you knew I was not addressing you personally, but the current state of affairs. I think we are in agreement, but it is disheartening to see that dialog without these little snarky comments is near impossible, even between those who agree.
Not trying to flame, I am concerned about what the government is spending now, but I see it as a consequence to the spending that began with the war in Iraq. Obviously it is done, cannot be undone, but that war is the root of our current spending woes. Until we started that war (not the Afghan war) we were maintaining a surplus. This is not a D v R issue, there were very few in congress who opposed the war. But to complain now about spending and ignore the war is bordering on mental imbalance.
You misread even the summary, with a quote from a small rancher who apparently would disagree strongly with your statement.
'Lobbyists from corporate mega-agribusiness designed this program to destroy traditional small sustainable agriculture,' says Genell Pridgen, an owner of Rainbow Meadow Farms.
There's a dichotomy going on: I buy this, it is mine to do with as I like (Windows, beer) vs I buy this and it is mine until I tire of it, and then it is your problem once again. Perhaps we need a deposit fee to ensure proper consumer behaviour, after all it is the buyers who end up throwing the stuff in the garbage. And we cannot seem to be responsible for our own actions. Pay an extra $50 bucks that you get back when you return it. This worked for glass bottles (we should still do that because re-use for glass is much better than trying to recycle it . . . no state I have lived in has done it for a long time).
Slashdot Mirror
Billed by the minute means that any fraction of a minute is counted as a full minute. So yes, it is costing you.
Or to answer graphically.
AAPL was selling for about $90 last october. Looked at it lately? If that is shooting itself in the foot then perhaps more companies should learn the trick.
Damn, that is one big audio jack, big enough for a garden hose. I want to listen to that pair of headphones!
One of the missions of the military is to secure access to oil as a point of national security. This has been going on since the 50s at least, and is one of the chief reasons we helped to remove a democratically elected leader in Iran and prop up the Shah. The consequence of this about 20 years later was the revolt and rise to power of the Ayatollah. If we were not dependent on oil in the middle east we would not have bases in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq, and Kuwait to name a few. I don't know if you are trolling or not, but to claim that the military and other subsidies are directly going to oil is absurd. I have posted many links to spending bills in the past that earmark billions to subsidizing oil, all easily found via "google". This crap is already costing you shitloads of money, as well as shitloads of liberty. I don't know what your agenda is, but mine is freedom and liberty both personal and financial.
Don't forget that the anti AGW studies are largely funded by the same groups that stand to lose a big sack o' profit from carbon taxes.
Probably wasting bits on an A/C but better technology needs government help because oil is getting massive government help (starting with the military). The playing field needs to be leveled.
The point you are missing is that this does not need to use farmland. It will actually work best in the deserts of SW US, like New Mexico, where there are large aquifers that contain brackish (non-potable) water. The process may even end up purifying some of the water through condensation in the clear bio reactors.
It all sounds great until you realize that we are at war and have standing armies in a whole bunch of other countries because of oil. If we can find a way to produce a fuel that means we don't need to import oil, then we can bring the troops home, close up a bunch of foreign bases and save a lot of taxpayer money. Those holes you speak of are nothing compared to the social^W corporate welfare rat-hole that is the military-industrial complex.
The biofuels that are discussed in the article are algae based, so they don't use potable water, don't displace food crops, are carbon neutral (especially if the CO2 is taken directly from the atmosphere, which in the low-tech solutions it is), and are not dependent on the middle east. So, what are the problems again?
That's better. I was about to flame your ass for being such a moron.
Or if it stops being true. This graph shows the data from 1880. While it does look like the last 8 or so years have been a down-tick, that's only relative to the local maxima. Not saying this proves global warming as man made, but it certainly makes the argument that we are cooling look a little obtuse.
We could man it with politicians.
Agreed. The lay user will only be able to meaningfully participate in early design phases (think requirements) and then again in testing (especially UI testing). It seems to me that they already have the ability to participate in these ways. Any attempt at involvement in the architecture design surely would only hinder good software practices.
Who incidentally are the same guys who counted all the WMDs that Bush found.
I guess in some cases Flamebait = uncomfortable truth ?
Heat does not rise, it moves to colder areas (trying to be in equilibrium). Fluids move differently due to temperature. You are oversimplifying to the point of being just plain wrong.
Mod this up for being correct, GP is incorrect!
Please provide citation showing that it is specifically the democrats allowing loopholes for coal fired plants, and not a fairly impressive mix . . .
I stand corrected, I thought that since 1999 we ran a surplus until 2003, though it seems that perhaps that was due to the amazing rectal-cranial inversion. It does seem though that Iraq helped to spin us out of control, but we were already spiraling down thanks to the NASDAQ bubble bursting (anyone remember MicroStrategies? kind of the precursor to Enron). Without the nation building in Iraq I maintain that TARP funds would not have been needed today, as war generally bleeds money out of the economy that will never be recouped.
I fail to see how I am hell bent on anything or accusing you of being mentally imbalanced. I simply made a comment or observation, preambled with "not to flame" so that you knew I was not addressing you personally, but the current state of affairs. I think we are in agreement, but it is disheartening to see that dialog without these little snarky comments is near impossible, even between those who agree.
Not trying to flame, I am concerned about what the government is spending now, but I see it as a consequence to the spending that began with the war in Iraq. Obviously it is done, cannot be undone, but that war is the root of our current spending woes. Until we started that war (not the Afghan war) we were maintaining a surplus. This is not a D v R issue, there were very few in congress who opposed the war. But to complain now about spending and ignore the war is bordering on mental imbalance.
That is handy . . . do you have it in pie chart format for my less technical friends?
You misread even the summary, with a quote from a small rancher who apparently would disagree strongly with your statement.
'Lobbyists from corporate mega-agribusiness designed this program to destroy traditional small sustainable agriculture,' says Genell Pridgen, an owner of Rainbow Meadow Farms.
There's a dichotomy going on: I buy this, it is mine to do with as I like (Windows, beer) vs I buy this and it is mine until I tire of it, and then it is your problem once again. Perhaps we need a deposit fee to ensure proper consumer behaviour, after all it is the buyers who end up throwing the stuff in the garbage. And we cannot seem to be responsible for our own actions. Pay an extra $50 bucks that you get back when you return it. This worked for glass bottles (we should still do that because re-use for glass is much better than trying to recycle it . . . no state I have lived in has done it for a long time).