I've used many banks but had to do that only once. If you play it right, the new bank will sweeten the defection with a few perks, discounts, better rates or waived fees.
Neat. Wonder how many people would have to get those perks before they'd clue in that it costs them less to just support those standards?
Actually, if they're not clued in about standards, maybe they're not clued in enough to account for that either. At least geeks get a discount:)
Dude, sorry but that's Bull. Denmark now generates 20% of its electricity from wind. Is that not a fraction? Germany is aiming for 25% by 2025, up from 6% in 2003- that's not too shabby either. But saying it can't generate a fraction is nonsense- if I built one 3W windmill myself, it would still be a "fraction." What do you consider significant in the energy mix?
Do you honestly think we can build %20+ of new capacity coming from solar at a cost even remotely comparable to wind?
Costs of nuclear are front-loaded and the time to completion (or even time to do maintenance as in Ontario) can be absurdly long. Wind gets going much faster and can be added incrementally. Finally, most importantly, wind prices are going down. We expect to get more quality and lower prices when buying computer parts. Most new technologies drop by a predictable percentage everytime production doubles- IIRC wind is about 15%. Wind energy production is going up in the double digits, anywhere from 20 to 30%. Most analysts think the price of wind will make it the cheapest source of incremental electricity by 2020- even cheaper than Natural Gas and Coal.
I wouldn't write off solar either. Either way most of the gains are still to be made in conservation, which end-runs the whole generation discussion. Since we will need some of our great^5-grandchildren to guard nuclear depots for the garbage we already have, the least we could do is to produce as little as possible.
I vote for having middle school students decide this based on the available evidence. Let them call witnesses and decide on the process.
Oh, I realize this will piss off the scientists. Think of it this way: these adult politicians and scientists are suggesting handing over the responsibility for extremely toxic and long-lasting waste to future generations. It's a persistent reminder of our failure to use cleaner alternatives, and we should be made to account for this.
Although we can't ask the 7th generation what their wishes are, we can ask the next. Does this infuriate you? Do you think they're not responsible enough? Think this through: they will be handling that waste when you're wearing diapers.
TFA mentions that one of the picosatellites will beam back pictures.
Anyone know what kind of resolution this thing has?
This has me wondering how expensive it would be to put one of these cams on a high-altitude balloon to get free-of-copyright basemap data. Not that I have the technical chops to do such a thing, but if this is possible is anyone going to do this soon, and will prices finally start falling?
So, you're recording to the iRiver for the 10% of conferences that are a useful waste of time?;)
Seriously, like most meetings, calls are incredibly inefficient. There's a few rules to follow for efficient meetings- just because they're over the phone doesn't mean they don't apply anymore.
That's why if there is no agenda, I'll just refuse to attend. Otherwise, good facilitation is everyone's responsibility. Some interventions can be useful: "What needs to be done about this item?" "I'm happy with both solutions you suggested, but your two departments obviously have different needs. Can you two try to work out alternatives and report back at our next call so we can move through the rest of our agenda?"
Can be a good way to undermine a PHB's authority that can't manage meetings:)
I'm a student of economics, and I can say with authority that this kind of market trend is not one we want to gravitate toward.
Your study of economics does not give you the right to speak for what "we" want.
The market is not something that will avoid certain business scenarios so that you may avoid living in constant fear. This thing called "capitalism" does not have feelings, nor does it care what you feel. If you haven't felt that fear yet, you've been blissfully insulated from the market realities the vast majority of the rest of the world (presumably that "we" you speak of) has had to experience.
Besides, some of us actually want an economy where the hot new product we build in March is free as in beer or at least dirt-cheap by November. That kind of commodification is what makes us all so rich. In the past couple centuries, we've actually put over 90% of the farming economy out of work. This is just going faster. Yeah, we'll have to adjust.
So get over your feelings, learn some good economic history and join the rest of us that want to build real wealth. It's not a job, but it is real work.
Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said Congress needs to do something to help consumers with the older analog sets, an estimated 21 million households. ... Stevens estimates that the converter boxes would cost about $50. His plan would call for the government to pay roughly $40, and the consumer would make a co-payment of $10.
21 million * $40 subsidy = $840 million. Which leaves only two unknowns I can't resolve for: Just how many gadgets do you need per household and how (in)efficient will this spending be? That's the $3 billion - $840 million = $2.16 billion dollar question.
The only reason there's a monopoly here is because the state grants one. Take that away and what's the market going to bear?
The classic theory of value doesn't take morals into account.
If pharmaceuticals are making twice as much ROI on capital as most other sectors, maybe they're profiteering. If they try keeping the same profit margins when a product needs to be mass-produced that they had for a boutique drug, that's just plain profiteering.
No, I don't need any grand theory or hard and fast numbers. I'll play this one on a case-by-case basis. Right now it's clear that they are profiteering, so they lose their monopoly. In the face of a pandemic, respecting some classic theory of economic voodoo is as important as knowing how many dancing angels you can fit on a booger. No one gives a damn anymore.
Oh, it's even more convoluted than that. They also subsidize research and buy most of your medicine. Push and pull at the same time. Government is schizoid, lavishly giving with one hand while taxing with the other.
But you're confusing the Taiwanese government and the US. The above applies to the Americans- what the Taiwanese has done is perfectly understandable and akin to what people have said about AIDS drugs.
Some profit is acceptable. At what point do you tell a company to just fuck off? How much higher profit can they have before you start thinking they're asking just too much? They're already making much better margins than many other industries.
And morally/ethically: how much are you willing to give to a foreign company to potentially save your countrymen and women's lives?
big breaktrough that will reduce the cost of PV cells... happening for decades
Indeed, we have. And you know what? Solar power is, inflation-adjusted, a quarter the cost it was in the 1970s. In short, the predictions of notably reduced cost have been *accurate*. If they keep remaining accurate, solar will become the cheapest power source available.
Dude, you're wasting your time on all the nuke fanboys. They just don't understand economics unless it applies to their toys.
Mods: Sure, you can call this flamebait (got karma to burn, who gives a shit). The vast majority of comments are pro-nuke, and everyone is going on about safety when the REAL REASON so few nuke orders are going through is cost.
Oh, and parent is 100% correct with regards to solar prices going down. See also Earth-policy.org's Wind Power Set to Become World's Leading Energy Source and accompanying data (pay close attention to the last graph on that page). You just can't beat those types of economics- right now it's a race between solar and wind; nukes can't even come close.
It's not energy efficient to have a computer on 24/7 if you only use it 8/5. Something that booted faster would certainly save a lot of energy if it could help convince people that they won't waste 5 minutes 5 times a week.
Thinking you'll be ineffective is often something stopping people from taking action. Not as much of a motivation for geeks, but feeling apart of something bigger is also a strong motivator.
Thank god we have scientists like George H. Taylor quoted in those independent articles, and the companies like Exxon that fund their work. Working for Tech Central Science Foundation, Taylor consistently helps further the agenda of pure science and the protection of American Values (TM).
Not to mention the money Exxon generously gives to Bush.
fanboish? FF has the advantage of being more standards compliant; you can practically assume that it if displays properly it will be ok in other compliant browsers.
And it's easier to hack something for IE as an after-thought than the alternative.
I can't think of any company blogging about their lobbying efforts.
With so many people watching Google's every move, this could introduce a lot of people to issues most/.'ers care about.
This could have quite an interesting impact. I pity the elected officials that side with vested interests and go against popular company arguing for sane policies supported by most of their informed constituents.
If Google stays open about its efforts, it could get far more bang for the buck.
FYI, Renee and I finally got to Palestine, TX at about 5:45 AM -- 30 hours after leaving our house in Clear Lake. The Prius still has about 1/4 tank of gas...
And if you're at least of the opinion that adding even more CO2 to the atmosphere might be making these storms worse you can appreciate the poetic beauty. Not all returns are financial.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, if they're not clued in about standards, maybe they're not clued in enough to account for that either. At least geeks get a discount
Dude, sorry but that's Bull. Denmark now generates 20% of its electricity from wind. Is that not a fraction? Germany is aiming for 25% by 2025, up from 6% in 2003- that's not too shabby either. But saying it can't generate a fraction is nonsense- if I built one 3W windmill myself, it would still be a "fraction." What do you consider significant in the energy mix?
Do you honestly think we can build %20+ of new capacity coming from solar at a cost even remotely comparable to wind?
Costs of nuclear are front-loaded and the time to completion (or even time to do maintenance as in Ontario) can be absurdly long. Wind gets going much faster and can be added incrementally. Finally, most importantly, wind prices are going down. We expect to get more quality and lower prices when buying computer parts. Most new technologies drop by a predictable percentage everytime production doubles- IIRC wind is about 15%. Wind energy production is going up in the double digits, anywhere from 20 to 30%. Most analysts think the price of wind will make it the cheapest source of incremental electricity by 2020- even cheaper than Natural Gas and Coal.
I wouldn't write off solar either. Either way most of the gains are still to be made in conservation, which end-runs the whole generation discussion. Since we will need some of our great^5-grandchildren to guard nuclear depots for the garbage we already have, the least we could do is to produce as little as possible.
I vote for having middle school students decide this based on the available evidence. Let them call witnesses and decide on the process.
Oh, I realize this will piss off the scientists. Think of it this way: these adult politicians and scientists are suggesting handing over the responsibility for extremely toxic and long-lasting waste to future generations. It's a persistent reminder of our failure to use cleaner alternatives, and we should be made to account for this.
Although we can't ask the 7th generation what their wishes are, we can ask the next. Does this infuriate you? Do you think they're not responsible enough? Think this through: they will be handling that waste when you're wearing diapers.
There is no need to protect monopolies or oligopolies.
I don't see how this really benefits Google in any tangible way. These people were doing R&D, not competing to buy fiber.
In any case, if it did help Google, anyone with stock or sell options could have done it.
TFA mentions that one of the picosatellites will beam back pictures.
Anyone know what kind of resolution this thing has?
This has me wondering how expensive it would be to put one of these cams on a high-altitude balloon to get free-of-copyright basemap data. Not that I have the technical chops to do such a thing, but if this is possible is anyone going to do this soon, and will prices finally start falling?
So, you're recording to the iRiver for the 10% of conferences that are a useful waste of time? ;)
:)
Seriously, like most meetings, calls are incredibly inefficient. There's a few rules to follow for efficient meetings- just because they're over the phone doesn't mean they don't apply anymore.
That's why if there is no agenda, I'll just refuse to attend. Otherwise, good facilitation is everyone's responsibility. Some interventions can be useful:
"What needs to be done about this item?"
"I'm happy with both solutions you suggested, but your two departments obviously have different needs. Can you two try to work out alternatives and report back at our next call so we can move through the rest of our agenda?"
Can be a good way to undermine a PHB's authority that can't manage meetings
The market is not something that will avoid certain business scenarios so that you may avoid living in constant fear. This thing called "capitalism" does not have feelings, nor does it care what you feel. If you haven't felt that fear yet, you've been blissfully insulated from the market realities the vast majority of the rest of the world (presumably that "we" you speak of) has had to experience.
Besides, some of us actually want an economy where the hot new product we build in March is free as in beer or at least dirt-cheap by November. That kind of commodification is what makes us all so rich. In the past couple centuries, we've actually put over 90% of the farming economy out of work. This is just going faster. Yeah, we'll have to adjust.
So get over your feelings, learn some good economic history and join the rest of us that want to build real wealth. It's not a job, but it is real work.
2005 Atlantic hurricane season
The only reason there's a monopoly here is because the state grants one. Take that away and what's the market going to bear?
The classic theory of value doesn't take morals into account.
If pharmaceuticals are making twice as much ROI on capital as most other sectors, maybe they're profiteering. If they try keeping the same profit margins when a product needs to be mass-produced that they had for a boutique drug, that's just plain profiteering.
No, I don't need any grand theory or hard and fast numbers. I'll play this one on a case-by-case basis. Right now it's clear that they are profiteering, so they lose their monopoly. In the face of a pandemic, respecting some classic theory of economic voodoo is as important as knowing how many dancing angels you can fit on a booger. No one gives a damn anymore.
Oh, it's even more convoluted than that. They also subsidize research and buy most of your medicine. Push and pull at the same time. Government is schizoid, lavishly giving with one hand while taxing with the other.
But you're confusing the Taiwanese government and the US. The above applies to the Americans- what the Taiwanese has done is perfectly understandable and akin to what people have said about AIDS drugs.
Some profit is acceptable. At what point do you tell a company to just fuck off? How much higher profit can they have before you start thinking they're asking just too much? They're already making much better margins than many other industries.
And morally/ethically: how much are you willing to give to a foreign company to potentially save your countrymen and women's lives?
Mods: Sure, you can call this flamebait (got karma to burn, who gives a shit). The vast majority of comments are pro-nuke, and everyone is going on about safety when the REAL REASON so few nuke orders are going through is cost.
Oh, and parent is 100% correct with regards to solar prices going down. See also Earth-policy.org's Wind Power Set to Become World's Leading Energy Source and accompanying data (pay close attention to the last graph on that page). You just can't beat those types of economics- right now it's a race between solar and wind; nukes can't even come close.
That's going to be the SUV of its category. Big, ugly, inefficient design catering to those who desperately need the ego boost.
It will hopefully die (yeah, bad pun) a very prompt death.
It's not energy efficient to have a computer on 24/7 if you only use it 8/5. Something that booted faster would certainly save a lot of energy if it could help convince people that they won't waste 5 minutes 5 times a week.
Thinking you'll be ineffective is often something stopping people from taking action. Not as much of a motivation for geeks, but feeling apart of something bigger is also a strong motivator.
Consider trying a pledgebank pledge.
Thank god we have scientists like George H. Taylor quoted in those independent articles, and the companies like Exxon that fund their work. Working for Tech Central Science Foundation, Taylor consistently helps further the agenda of pure science and the protection of American Values (TM).
Not to mention the money Exxon generously gives to Bush.
Right on. After reading Doc's comment, I went to read your letter. It's no wonder it was the first one printed. Great work!
So, you're on /. and claim to have an SO and then you compare her to a mountain goat.
A shame dude, your story was almost credible until that point.
A mountain goat! sheesh
fanboish? FF has the advantage of being more standards compliant; you can practically assume that it if displays properly it will be ok in other compliant browsers.
And it's easier to hack something for IE as an after-thought than the alternative.
I can't think of any company blogging about their lobbying efforts.
/.'ers care about.
With so many people watching Google's every move, this could introduce a lot of people to issues most
This could have quite an interesting impact. I pity the elected officials that side with vested interests and go against popular company arguing for sane policies supported by most of their informed constituents.
If Google stays open about its efforts, it could get far more bang for the buck.