4Gigs at 20MB/s will fill up in a little over 3min 20 seconds.
Now most HDD will do 20MB/s so either this is going to be to small or a normal HDD is going to work fine for you. Anyway look into getting a 4+ disk RAID 5 array. I got one for 800$ that can store 900Gigs and can do something like 50MB/s transfers.
PS: What this disk is going to be great for is non-sequential storage. If you work with 30+ tracks you either need to have a lot of buffer / ram space (So you can store up lots of info then put it to disk.) or a non-sequential storage system.
Tape drives are not realy what you want when your only messing with 100GB. Buy 5 Seagate ST3160026A-RK 160GB 7200 RPM External Hard Drive - Retail 155$ from new egg and it's only going to cost you 800$. You can rotate though 5 full backups for vary good security for the next few years. If you do this I would buy a new set of disks every 2 years but it's still a lot cheeper than going with tape if you not going to back up all that much data.
I don't know if you want to buy software or just.tar the files and copy them to the drive, but tape drives are more for large or long term storage.
PS: Even if you go with a total off sight backup system it's still a good idea do your own backups in case the other company has some problems. I say keep atleast 3 copys of all data in atleast 2 locations even if you don't think your ever gonig to need it because once it's goine it's just gone.
If you want to see a privatized police force look at Mexico. Now compare the number of kidnappings in Mexico with the US. There are many cases where the government is much more efferent that private industry. These tend to be high accountability jobs the secret service. Yes places like the DMV suck but trying to run something like the FDA as a private company is not going to work.
Around 80% of school systems that privatized there lunch program ended up either significantly reducing the quality of food for a minor cost savings or significantly increasing the cost for little to no gain. The problem is every time you call in a private company to do something they bring a whole load of baggage like sales people / advertising costs because they need to convince the gov that it's going to be cheaper to use them. They are also trying to make a profit, which drains yet more money from the system. There tends to be minor differences between magnet schools (small targeted public schools) and private schools in the quality of students and education but their are huge differences in the cost of those programs.
Business people love working for the government because they get to act like a huge leach and drain a lot of money out of the system. Privatization rarely works when you compare the overall level of services and the net costs of using private company's to do public services. Look at the "private accounts" idea for SS. Now the gov could have a few hundred people set up some basic fund types aka lots of high risk stock down to T bills and then let people chose to put money into those programs as part of their taxes every year. Overall this would work as well as "private accounts" because over the long haul nobody really beats the average market performance of small to mid cap company's. So we could list programs 5 - 20 options and have people put X% money into them or take X% money out of them. Or we can have 10,000 fund managers calling people and saying "Hey, we want you to invest with confidence and invest with us..." Which would do nothing to help SS and be a huge drain on the system.
2.5yr is based around best ROI. AKA Buying a 400$ pc every 2.5 years is better than buying an 800$ pc every 5 years.
Personally I tend to buy cheep stuff, over clock it and replace it when it breaks. The difference between a cheep CPU and the best CPU you can find now tends to be a lot less than the difference between the best CPU now and a cheep CPU you can find in 2.5 years. (This does seem to be slowing down some for RAM and CPU's but it still works for graphics cards.) It even works for those who find a 500$ system overkill now you can always eBay for a 2-year-old machine that costs 150$.
I think your missing a large part of the picture. There are other factors which caused the development of large fish. This implies by forcing them to adapt to a smaller size they are less well suited to their natural environment. Thus, while a fish might not notice it's smaller the species is probably suffering because of its smaller average size.
Not really it helps in some ways but nothing really prevents a MITM attack where a user sits down at a new PC and attempts to connect to a website.
The advantage a public keys gives vs. MITM is once you know the real public key you are safe but as long as they can say anything they wan is the public key then they can do a MITM attack just fine.
As long as you're asking scientists for "proof" your trolling.
We have already simulated a simple brain which accurately responded as the original creature did by simulating the way each of their neurons interacted with each other and their environment thus demonstrating that our understating is probably correct but that does not provide proof.
Linking QM to consciousness is silly. If you want to exactly copy something you need to follow all the QM rules but you can make several PIV's which behave in vary similar fashion without replicating the QM states. QM is twice as old as I am and it's the basis for our understanding of vary small systems but the implication that you need to replicate a specific arrangement down to quantum levels in order to simulate consensus is silly. The brain operates at a vary large scale at extremely high temperatures and long time scales which tend to override most QM effects.
As far as QM is concerned there is nothing unique about a neuron or a liver cell they both hot and huge.
Over a second a single cell goes though an insane number of quantum states but the ~100,000,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body over a lifetime of 2,049,840,000 seconds goes though so many specific states as to overwhelm any QM coherence that might be linked to consciousness. The human body has around 10, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms. Each of which can go though well over 10,000,000,000 * 10,000,000,000 *10,000,000,000 *10,000,000,000 states per electron per second. Now if you want to link how the receptor on a single neuron works then fine call in QM but for large-scale things QM is over kill. At best QM might act as a sort of random number generator which let's the mind pick things out of thin air but it's not going to be how the mind stores the memory's of your 10th birthday so you can think back on it when your 80.
PS: Give or take a zero or two on some of those numbers.
Thanks; I don't really know much about the Amish. My understanding was they do sell some products to the out side world and they also use some services but when compared to 180,000,000,000$/year in agro subsides they are not causing much damage. I don't know if they taxes on their land or what not but my understanding was they where mostly self-sufficient. An 18 year old with a life sentence can easily cost 800,000$ to keep in jail for most of their life but they not part of the agro subsidies and they are not really what I was talking about.
PS: I think I should read up more on them before using them as an example. Anyway, I expect that some farmers don't receive any form of subsidies but I can't really think of any.
I am not saying we should destroy the entire system but trim some of the fat off the sides.
From what I understand agri-businesses also receive significant subsidies, but more importantly we are "wasting" a lot of resources by over production and I think that's stupid. Personally I think we should buy out the small farmers for a variety of reasons such the ease of regulating 50 companies vs. 50,000. But, people seem to have this idealist view of what small farming is while ignoring the fact it's basically a huge lightly regulated chemical factory. Take X plant place in barren soil, add fertilizer, weed killer, bug spray, and H2O; repeat then harvest. If people would get the idea that farming is natural out of their heads they would be appalled at how damaging and wastefull all this excess / useless food is.
The land might not be useless. There are plenty of plants that would work great for fuel, and because the fuel is basically long carbon and hydrogen chains or water + CO2 + energy > gas + oxygen your not striping the soil of all the things your dumping fatherlier to replenish. By using something like fast growth pine you can avoid weed killer after a few years so it's just pest control after a while but trying to use corn is a bad idea. Hell we can make plastics out of a lot of plants but people are stuck on the idea that we need to make as much food as possible and thus feed all the starving people or something.
The average HS student in the US can make enough money to buy a day's worth of rice in around 15 min of work at 5.25/h, that's insane. The reason food is this cheep is not that food has no value or it's simply that easy to make but rather we are subsidizing it to such a degree that we are over producing it to a level that crushes food's intrinsic value. Cut back US food production by 5% and I don't think the price would go up noticeably. But by cutting out 5% of farms and 5% of 180billion in subsidies would easily cover say the US costs to fund ITER 10x over.
It's not that we need new technology or to adopt a better system but rather we need to shift closer to a free market system. However, rather than forcing a lot farmers to go broke and introduce wild price fluctuations I say we store the current surplus to help ease the basic problems. Yes, this would hurt the 3rd world in the short term but when / if farming can become profitable without subsidies then you can transport that model anywhere in the world.
Sorry if this is not clear it would be cheaper to pay people to do nothing than pay for people and the resources they are using to farm. Every* farm in the US is a waste of US resources and a drain on the economy.
*Ok the Amish are doing fine, but for the most part it would be cheaper to import food and pay farmers the same wage than it is to grow food here.
Plus, the smaller-farming regime makes it easier to establish biodiversity in the food-supply and avoid risky monocultures. ???
Why?
There are no advantages to small farms. With large farms you can have a diversified farm and still uses the most efficient methods. If a crop needs 100 people / square mile then you can use that many people on a large farm just as easily as you could on a small farm. The advantage is you can better manage your resources on a large farm. If you're farming 50,000 acres then you can rotate your crops and still have full use off all your equipment but with 50 acres it's going to be hard to use large equipment and have a diversified system. On the most basic level take 2 farms with the same shape if one has 4x the area it only needs 2x the fencing so right off the bat you just increased your efficiency at no cost to you or the environment.
PS: Oil not the only fosil fuel we have several times more coal right now than all the oil on the planet + all the oil ever used, and we can make gas out of coal.
You don't need to replace everything on the same day.
Replace 1 10MPG SUV with 1 60MPG car and leave everything else alone. Replace one normal commuter with 1 telecommuter. Replace one aging jet with a 30% more efferent model.
Energy costs represent 3% of the US economy triple them over 5 years and the economy will still be 9% larger than when you started. Oil is not that big a deal. Most of our energy comes from coal, which is plentiful and can be turn into gas. Look into lamp oil and see how fast an economy can change from a diminishing resource (whales) to an equivalent (oil).
Go into defense contracting? Look I am not saying we should have government owned farms I am saying the gov buys the land and does nothing with it and thus saves money. I understand it's welfare for votes and I get it that low population states have way more power than cash but it would be cheaper to buy the land and just give those people the cash than go though the nascence of actually creating food that nobody wants.
If you really want to support farmers why not just have the gov buy farms. I mean we already export a tun of food and we/the gov is pumping a lot of money into making cheep food that just gets exported so why not just buy excess farmland. Thus decreasing the supply of food and thus increasing it's value while setting aside this farm land so that it's topsoil will remain for future generations seems like a net win for everyone. If we start with say 100million a year on the most subsidized farms then we can stop subsidizing those farms thus saving money letting us buy more farms the next year... Until we reach a balance point where we don't need to subsidies the remaining farms.
Now some might say producing an over abundance of food each year is a good idea for safety reasons, but rather than turn the existing abundance into fuel we can store some of that food for a few years and build up a reserve. With 2 years of reserved food we should be able to adapt to any sudden changes in the food supply.
Ok, now I recall what I forgot it's AC costs. For simplicity just double your energy costs in worm areas. (I think they are more efficient than that but it's and old rule of thumb that, but I picked up from someone who works with them. I think this is supposed in include the extra wear on the AC unit, which is why it's that high. )
As for the LCD's pay for them selves in a year take one and run it 24/7 for a year and include AC costs and you might be right. But, I agree that blanket statements are not such a great idea. I have been using a great 800$ 19" Sony LCD at home a four about a year. I picked it up for ease of transport and some desk space vs. getting a second CRT but the difference was so striking that I stopped using the CRT as it's just looked to dim to switch back and forth frequently. I could have gotten an equally bright CRT for a lot cheaper but that was not my primary concern. However, with my bad habit of leaving it on for long periods of the time when not in use the difference in price is probably a lot less than what I was thinking at the time.
Anyway, for home use I don't see getting a cheep 17" screen but when picking up a bulk of "cheep" monitors for an office (with nice hardware discount) the basic bulk cost savings and the minimum time their on + AC costs probably makes most 17" LCD's significantly cheaper over 4 years.
Umm 4 hours a day? Now I don't know about you but that seems a little low. Granted, it is usage dependent but I was assuming an office setting of 8.5 hours a day * 5 days / week * 48 weeks / year = 5.6
h/day or 19$ / year with your numbers.
Now cheep LCD's cost 50$ more than cheep CRT's so you save 20-$ over 4 years.
Of course your average coder is going to spend a lot more time in front of that monitor which pushes the numbers even higher. When I did the numbers last time it saved 50$ over 4 years but I was comparing specific models, which made things easer. You also have to look into how much energy each CRT is using which varies widely based on model type.
As a counter point to what you're saying I live 5 miles from work in Fairfax Va. Having traveled that same 5 miles for over 2 years I find making 4 lane changes on the same road tends to save me 5 min on the drive home. Now this is based around where people get onto / off of said road coupled with a large number of unsynchronized traffic lights which tends to exaggerate the value of a few car lengths. It's hard to say if it's worth it but 5min * 50weekds *5days/week * 2years/60(min/h) = ~42 hours saved in the last two years.
Now I don't do the jack rabbit lane changes that some people do but by avoiding the lanes that get congested I can save significant amounts of time.
PS: This is lee highway which runs right though Fairfax city so there are significant people making right and left exits at various points. I timed this vs. a coworker who lived in the same apartment complex as I did and frequently left at the same time I did. We are both computer people with erratic schedules so carpooling never really worked but his habit of sticking in the same lane made this an easy experiment to carry out.
I think we need to teach English, Math, Science, History, Debate (Logic + Public Speaking), PE, and Art / Music / Dance. Yep, teach Debate as a core subject. All students need to be able to analyze the meaning behind what is said as well as the basic logical fallacies.
Split HS English into Reading, writing, and grammar. Thus a student would read a book and be tested on their understanding of the material, They would then write a content-based essay on the subject and get a separate grade. Finally they would correct an essay and would receive a separate grade based on their grammar.
Only test math students with word problems so they learn when to apply a process not just the process it's self.
Science students need to be taught a basic history of science, the basic life processes, some basic chemistry and physics, the basic methods of science, and an overview of the concepts and methods of the other areas of science. Physiology, Psychology, Astronomy, Paleontology, Ecology, ect... All HS grads should understand that solar energy drives the ecosystem and while meat has a high energy density it is a less efferent source of solar energy when compared to eating plants. (It's a reasonably complex idea but fairly basic.) The idea is to provide a useful level of scientific understanding to operate in society not just overwhelm students with seemingly useless trivia. Thus a student should understand that a heat pump is more efferent than resistant heating but they don't need to be able build one.
Hey, I liked the 3rd movie. Granted like all the others I only saw it once but it was a fairly clever use of time travel that worked well.
I read The Hobbit and LOTR as a kid but it had nothing on A Wizard of Earthsea. I think the LOTR movies where far better than the book and Harry Potter is childish fluff that is worth a single sitting but not something to waste your time thinking about. The whole idea of GOOD vs. EVIL is childish. Yep, some people are sadists who live to kill people in interesting ways but they are no more Evil than Mother Teresa was Good. Now when Harry decides to save a room full of people or one of his closest friends then it might be worth a closer glance but as long as it's stuck in the Good vs. Evil theme it's just mindless drivel.
PS: Watch the movie then read the book and see if your opinion does not change.
I am setting up a movie renal service and will soon be distributing Mpeg-2 quality movies (5GB) at ~2.25 per movie for a 24 hour rental. If your interested in becoming a beta tester feel free to email me at: admin "I hate spam" at dv-download.com and I will contact you in a ~3 months when I get the service off the ground.
PS: When your renting from blockbuster your not really getting unlimited rentals for 24$ your getting however many you end up watching for 24$ a month. Netflix people average around 5 a month but your stuck with a few movies at a time and don't get to watch what you want when you want it. The idea is we will have the moves you want in stock because of the 1-day rental period, which greatly offsets the bandwidth costs. I could charge ~2.50$ for 48 hour rentals but I don't think that's what people realy want.
Slashdot Mirror
4Gigs at 20MB/s will fill up in a little over 3min 20 seconds.
Now most HDD will do 20MB/s so either this is going to be to small or a normal HDD is going to work fine for you. Anyway look into getting a 4+ disk RAID 5 array. I got one for 800$ that can store 900Gigs and can do something like 50MB/s transfers.
PS: What this disk is going to be great for is non-sequential storage. If you work with 30+ tracks you either need to have a lot of buffer / ram space (So you can store up lots of info then put it to disk.) or a non-sequential storage system.
Tape drives are not realy what you want when your only messing with 100GB. Buy 5 Seagate ST3160026A-RK 160GB 7200 RPM External Hard Drive - Retail 155$ from new egg and it's only going to cost you 800$. You can rotate though 5 full backups for vary good security for the next few years. If you do this I would buy a new set of disks every 2 years but it's still a lot cheeper than going with tape if you not going to back up all that much data.
.tar the files and copy them to the drive, but tape drives are more for large or long term storage.
I don't know if you want to buy software or just
PS: Even if you go with a total off sight backup system it's still a good idea do your own backups in case the other company has some problems. I say keep atleast 3 copys of all data in atleast 2 locations even if you don't think your ever gonig to need it because once it's goine it's just gone.
If you want to see a privatized police force look at Mexico. Now compare the number of kidnappings in Mexico with the US. There are many cases where the government is much more efferent that private industry. These tend to be high accountability jobs the secret service. Yes places like the DMV suck but trying to run something like the FDA as a private company is not going to work.
Around 80% of school systems that privatized there lunch program ended up either significantly reducing the quality of food for a minor cost savings or significantly increasing the cost for little to no gain. The problem is every time you call in a private company to do something they bring a whole load of baggage like sales people / advertising costs because they need to convince the gov that it's going to be cheaper to use them. They are also trying to make a profit, which drains yet more money from the system. There tends to be minor differences between magnet schools (small targeted public schools) and private schools in the quality of students and education but their are huge differences in the cost of those programs.
Business people love working for the government because they get to act like a huge leach and drain a lot of money out of the system. Privatization rarely works when you compare the overall level of services and the net costs of using private company's to do public services. Look at the "private accounts" idea for SS. Now the gov could have a few hundred people set up some basic fund types aka lots of high risk stock down to T bills and then let people chose to put money into those programs as part of their taxes every year. Overall this would work as well as "private accounts" because over the long haul nobody really beats the average market performance of small to mid cap company's. So we could list programs 5 - 20 options and have people put X% money into them or take X% money out of them. Or we can have 10,000 fund managers calling people and saying "Hey, we want you to invest with confidence and invest with us..." Which would do nothing to help SS and be a huge drain on the system.
2.5yr is based around best ROI. AKA Buying a 400$ pc every 2.5 years is better than buying an 800$ pc every 5 years.
Personally I tend to buy cheep stuff, over clock it and replace it when it breaks. The difference between a cheep CPU and the best CPU you can find now tends to be a lot less than the difference between the best CPU now and a cheep CPU you can find in 2.5 years. (This does seem to be slowing down some for RAM and CPU's but it still works for graphics cards.) It even works for those who find a 500$ system overkill now you can always eBay for a 2-year-old machine that costs 150$.
Sounds Win - Win to me.
I think your missing a large part of the picture. There are other factors which caused the development of large fish. This implies by forcing them to adapt to a smaller size they are less well suited to their natural environment. Thus, while a fish might not notice it's smaller the species is probably suffering because of its smaller average size.
Not really it helps in some ways but nothing really prevents a MITM attack where a user sits down at a new PC and attempts to connect to a website.
The advantage a public keys gives vs. MITM is once you know the real public key you are safe but as long as they can say anything they wan is the public key then they can do a MITM attack just fine.
As long as you're asking scientists for "proof" your trolling.
We have already simulated a simple brain which accurately responded as the original creature did by simulating the way each of their neurons interacted with each other and their environment thus demonstrating that our understating is probably correct but that does not provide proof.
Linking QM to consciousness is silly. If you want to exactly copy something you need to follow all the QM rules but you can make several PIV's which behave in vary similar fashion without replicating the QM states. QM is twice as old as I am and it's the basis for our understanding of vary small systems but the implication that you need to replicate a specific arrangement down to quantum levels in order to simulate consensus is silly. The brain operates at a vary large scale at extremely high temperatures and long time scales which tend to override most QM effects.
As far as QM is concerned there is nothing unique about a neuron or a liver cell they both hot and huge. Over a second a single cell goes though an insane number of quantum states but the ~100,000,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body over a lifetime of 2,049,840,000 seconds goes though so many specific states as to overwhelm any QM coherence that might be linked to consciousness. The human body has around 10, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms. Each of which can go though well over 10,000,000,000 * 10,000,000,000 *10,000,000,000 *10,000,000,000 states per electron per second. Now if you want to link how the receptor on a single neuron works then fine call in QM but for large-scale things QM is over kill. At best QM might act as a sort of random number generator which let's the mind pick things out of thin air but it's not going to be how the mind stores the memory's of your 10th birthday so you can think back on it when your 80.
PS: Give or take a zero or two on some of those numbers.
Thanks; I don't really know much about the Amish. My understanding was they do sell some products to the out side world and they also use some services but when compared to 180,000,000,000$/year in agro subsides they are not causing much damage. I don't know if they taxes on their land or what not but my understanding was they where mostly self-sufficient. An 18 year old with a life sentence can easily cost 800,000$ to keep in jail for most of their life but they not part of the agro subsidies and they are not really what I was talking about.
PS: I think I should read up more on them before using them as an example. Anyway, I expect that some farmers don't receive any form of subsidies but I can't really think of any.
I am not saying we should destroy the entire system but trim some of the fat off the sides.
From what I understand agri-businesses also receive significant subsidies, but more importantly we are "wasting" a lot of resources by over production and I think that's stupid. Personally I think we should buy out the small farmers for a variety of reasons such the ease of regulating 50 companies vs. 50,000. But, people seem to have this idealist view of what small farming is while ignoring the fact it's basically a huge lightly regulated chemical factory. Take X plant place in barren soil, add fertilizer, weed killer, bug spray, and H2O; repeat then harvest. If people would get the idea that farming is natural out of their heads they would be appalled at how damaging and wastefull all this excess / useless food is.
The land might not be useless. There are plenty of plants that would work great for fuel, and because the fuel is basically long carbon and hydrogen chains or water + CO2 + energy > gas + oxygen your not striping the soil of all the things your dumping fatherlier to replenish. By using something like fast growth pine you can avoid weed killer after a few years so it's just pest control after a while but trying to use corn is a bad idea. Hell we can make plastics out of a lot of plants but people are stuck on the idea that we need to make as much food as possible and thus feed all the starving people or something.
The average HS student in the US can make enough money to buy a day's worth of rice in around 15 min of work at 5.25/h, that's insane. The reason food is this cheep is not that food has no value or it's simply that easy to make but rather we are subsidizing it to such a degree that we are over producing it to a level that crushes food's intrinsic value. Cut back US food production by 5% and I don't think the price would go up noticeably. But by cutting out 5% of farms and 5% of 180billion in subsidies would easily cover say the US costs to fund ITER 10x over.
It's not that we need new technology or to adopt a better system but rather we need to shift closer to a free market system. However, rather than forcing a lot farmers to go broke and introduce wild price fluctuations I say we store the current surplus to help ease the basic problems. Yes, this would hurt the 3rd world in the short term but when / if farming can become profitable without subsidies then you can transport that model anywhere in the world.
Sorry if this is not clear it would be cheaper to pay people to do nothing than pay for people and the resources they are using to farm. Every* farm in the US is a waste of US resources and a drain on the economy.
*Ok the Amish are doing fine, but for the most part it would be cheaper to import food and pay farmers the same wage than it is to grow food here.
Plus, the smaller-farming regime makes it easier to establish biodiversity in the food-supply and avoid risky monocultures. ???
Why?
There are no advantages to small farms. With large farms you can have a diversified farm and still uses the most efficient methods. If a crop needs 100 people / square mile then you can use that many people on a large farm just as easily as you could on a small farm. The advantage is you can better manage your resources on a large farm. If you're farming 50,000 acres then you can rotate your crops and still have full use off all your equipment but with 50 acres it's going to be hard to use large equipment and have a diversified system. On the most basic level take 2 farms with the same shape if one has 4x the area it only needs 2x the fencing so right off the bat you just increased your efficiency at no cost to you or the environment.
Ok, we are not at the peak now. http://bigpicture.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized /cotd_20050406.gif
PS: Oil not the only fosil fuel we have several times more coal right now than all the oil on the planet + all the oil ever used, and we can make gas out of coal.
You don't need to replace everything on the same day.
Replace 1 10MPG SUV with 1 60MPG car and leave everything else alone. Replace one normal commuter with 1 telecommuter. Replace one aging jet with a 30% more efferent model.
Energy costs represent 3% of the US economy triple them over 5 years and the economy will still be 9% larger than when you started. Oil is not that big a deal. Most of our energy comes from coal, which is plentiful and can be turn into gas. Look into lamp oil and see how fast an economy can change from a diminishing resource (whales) to an equivalent (oil).
Go into defense contracting? Look I am not saying we should have government owned farms I am saying the gov buys the land and does nothing with it and thus saves money. I understand it's welfare for votes and I get it that low population states have way more power than cash but it would be cheaper to buy the land and just give those people the cash than go though the nascence of actually creating food that nobody wants.
If you really want to support farmers why not just have the gov buy farms. I mean we already export a tun of food and we/the gov is pumping a lot of money into making cheep food that just gets exported so why not just buy excess farmland. Thus decreasing the supply of food and thus increasing it's value while setting aside this farm land so that it's topsoil will remain for future generations seems like a net win for everyone. If we start with say 100million a year on the most subsidized farms then we can stop subsidizing those farms thus saving money letting us buy more farms the next year... Until we reach a balance point where we don't need to subsidies the remaining farms.
Now some might say producing an over abundance of food each year is a good idea for safety reasons, but rather than turn the existing abundance into fuel we can store some of that food for a few years and build up a reserve. With 2 years of reserved food we should be able to adapt to any sudden changes in the food supply.
Ok, now I recall what I forgot it's AC costs. For simplicity just double your energy costs in worm areas. (I think they are more efficient than that but it's and old rule of thumb that, but I picked up from someone who works with them. I think this is supposed in include the extra wear on the AC unit, which is why it's that high. )
As for the LCD's pay for them selves in a year take one and run it 24/7 for a year and include AC costs and you might be right. But, I agree that blanket statements are not such a great idea. I have been using a great 800$ 19" Sony LCD at home a four about a year. I picked it up for ease of transport and some desk space vs. getting a second CRT but the difference was so striking that I stopped using the CRT as it's just looked to dim to switch back and forth frequently. I could have gotten an equally bright CRT for a lot cheaper but that was not my primary concern. However, with my bad habit of leaving it on for long periods of the time when not in use the difference in price is probably a lot less than what I was thinking at the time.
Anyway, for home use I don't see getting a cheep 17" screen but when picking up a bulk of "cheep" monitors for an office (with nice hardware discount) the basic bulk cost savings and the minimum time their on + AC costs probably makes most 17" LCD's significantly cheaper over 4 years.
Umm 4 hours a day? Now I don't know about you but that seems a little low. Granted, it is usage dependent but I was assuming an office setting of 8.5 hours a day * 5 days / week * 48 weeks / year = 5.6 h/day or 19$ / year with your numbers.
Now cheep LCD's cost 50$ more than cheep CRT's so you save 20-$ over 4 years.
Of course your average coder is going to spend a lot more time in front of that monitor which pushes the numbers even higher. When I did the numbers last time it saved 50$ over 4 years but I was comparing specific models, which made things easer. You also have to look into how much energy each CRT is using which varies widely based on model type.
As a counter point to what you're saying I live 5 miles from work in Fairfax Va. Having traveled that same 5 miles for over 2 years I find making 4 lane changes on the same road tends to save me 5 min on the drive home. Now this is based around where people get onto / off of said road coupled with a large number of unsynchronized traffic lights which tends to exaggerate the value of a few car lengths. It's hard to say if it's worth it but 5min * 50weekds *5days/week * 2years /60(min/h) = ~42 hours saved in the last two years.
Now I don't do the jack rabbit lane changes that some people do but by avoiding the lanes that get congested I can save significant amounts of time.
PS: This is lee highway which runs right though Fairfax city so there are significant people making right and left exits at various points. I timed this vs. a coworker who lived in the same apartment complex as I did and frequently left at the same time I did. We are both computer people with erratic schedules so carpooling never really worked but his habit of sticking in the same lane made this an easy experiment to carry out.
When desiding between buying a 17" flat screan and a 17" CRT the cost of electrisity makes the CRT significantly cheeper over 4 years.
Look at http://www.csgnetwork.com/elecenergycalcs.html to get a good idea just how much your going to spend on energy.
You can use coal to make most things you made using oil. It's a little more expencive but there is a truely amasing amount of coal in the earth.
That's not realy the same thing. He is using a modified billbord in a vary public and negitive way.
I think we need to teach English, Math, Science, History, Debate (Logic + Public Speaking), PE, and Art / Music / Dance. Yep, teach Debate as a core subject. All students need to be able to analyze the meaning behind what is said as well as the basic logical fallacies. Split HS English into Reading, writing, and grammar. Thus a student would read a book and be tested on their understanding of the material, They would then write a content-based essay on the subject and get a separate grade. Finally they would correct an essay and would receive a separate grade based on their grammar. Only test math students with word problems so they learn when to apply a process not just the process it's self. Science students need to be taught a basic history of science, the basic life processes, some basic chemistry and physics, the basic methods of science, and an overview of the concepts and methods of the other areas of science. Physiology, Psychology, Astronomy, Paleontology, Ecology, ect... All HS grads should understand that solar energy drives the ecosystem and while meat has a high energy density it is a less efferent source of solar energy when compared to eating plants. (It's a reasonably complex idea but fairly basic.) The idea is to provide a useful level of scientific understanding to operate in society not just overwhelm students with seemingly useless trivia. Thus a student should understand that a heat pump is more efferent than resistant heating but they don't need to be able build one.
Hey, I liked the 3rd movie. Granted like all the others I only saw it once but it was a fairly clever use of time travel that worked well.
I read The Hobbit and LOTR as a kid but it had nothing on A Wizard of Earthsea. I think the LOTR movies where far better than the book and Harry Potter is childish fluff that is worth a single sitting but not something to waste your time thinking about. The whole idea of GOOD vs. EVIL is childish. Yep, some people are sadists who live to kill people in interesting ways but they are no more Evil than Mother Teresa was Good. Now when Harry decides to save a room full of people or one of his closest friends then it might be worth a closer glance but as long as it's stuck in the Good vs. Evil theme it's just mindless drivel.
PS: Watch the movie then read the book and see if your opinion does not change.
I am setting up a movie renal service and will soon be distributing Mpeg-2 quality movies (5GB) at ~2.25 per movie for a 24 hour rental. If your interested in becoming a beta tester feel free to email me at: admin "I hate spam" at dv-download.com and I will contact you in a ~3 months when I get the service off the ground.
PS: When your renting from blockbuster your not really getting unlimited rentals for 24$ your getting however many you end up watching for 24$ a month. Netflix people average around 5 a month but your stuck with a few movies at a time and don't get to watch what you want when you want it. The idea is we will have the moves you want in stock because of the 1-day rental period, which greatly offsets the bandwidth costs. I could charge ~2.50$ for 48 hour rentals but I don't think that's what people realy want.