wind and solar energy unprofitable. unprofitable as in WHAT ?
Unprofitable as in they don't make a profit.
the maintenance of wind farms are pathetically low compared to any other energy forms as far as i know. solar energy will go as far as the sun continues to exist.
The fact you tagged this on the the previous statement about profit indicates you think they have a positive correlation coefficient. One does not imply the other though.
wind energy is readily sufficiently efficient, without humongous investment on any companys' part. solar energy WILL become efficient soon, since the methods to capture sunlight is rapidly developing, since there is some investment flowing in recently
wind energy is inherently unreliable, solar has been under rapid development for decades, and it's still nowhere near as efficient as it need to be.
today companies want to profit without investing anything
Congratulations, you understand the purpose of incorporation, to make the most possible profit with the least possible risk. In fact, it's not only what they want, it's a legal requirement for their existence. Think of it as their feduciary duty to their shareholders, that might help make it more palatable.
i want to let you know i will evade anything with 'shell' logo or subsidiary logos on it
Wind and solar are a load of shit. They require huge upfront costs, have low reliability, and are hard to transport
You obviously haven't learned that facts like this don't matter to the greenies. They prefer to show their ignorance of basic science by accusing you of raping the land.
They're the same people who essentially killed the most promising form of green energy production known to man, nuclear, simply because they preferred to believe that f&%£ing traitor Jane Fonda in "The China Syndrome", instead of the scientifically provable facts.
The fight against ignoramuses is a never ending struggle; keep up the good work.
We have special rules for reporting about people of public interest, for a damn good reason. Most of them need chopping down a peg or two on a daily basis.
Basically, one could now commit a whole litany of crimes in plain view of the public,
Crimes, real crimes that is, are handled by the courts, and are a matter of public record. The reasons for being let go can be nothing more than a personality clash, hyped up as a gross dereliction of duty (or even worse). Individuals MUST be protected from corporations.
...imagine I was fired for sleeping with the directors daughter, who also happened to be the comptroller, and had access to my pay records (which would constitute gross misconduct, perhaps?), that doesn't mean the whole world should know that I porked her. Even the fact I was fired should be available only as a result of a direct enquiry, and I'm not even sure about that. It's not a crime to be fired from a company. In europe, (as far as I am aware) you may only ask a previous employer the following "Would you re-hire Mr. XXX"
You will never join facts unless you have a fact-joining intellectual toolkit
I don't disagree, but you need the facts too. So, which do you teach first. And, which is more important (and why) Again, these things are easily over-trivialized.
Be care what you classify as trivia. Unless you know facts, you can't collect those facts together and make meaningful statements about reality. Unless you know a diverse set of facts, you are unlikely to join two seemingly unrelated items and form a new concept. Facts are important, the ancients Greeks understood this well, and devoted a significant amount of their education to learning facts, and so produced some of the most progressive thinkers the world has ever known.
Me neither, I don't even like the word mashup. Mashups betray a lack of talent/knowledge/education/ability - and in the case of the word itself, a lack of rich vocabulary.
Get your lazy kid out of the freaking house, and make him/her run around and exercise those lungs. Force them to draw deep breaths, repeatedly. Make the lungs work and grow strong. Of course if you sit like a freaking lump, your lungs are weak. You ass-hats !
I agree with a lot of what you said above - that is interesting in itself - but not all
I think this comment has gone too far though I think publicly misrepresenting facts... Sorry, you're completely changing the discussion. (But I don't disagree either)
... they have more important things on their minds right now. Just goes to show how staggeringly idiotic local (and national) level politicians can be.
Prostitution, like all moral codes about sex, spring from oppressive religions. This is a naive and vastly trivialized point of view. Religion - and its rules - are created by man. Yes, religion is quite frequently corrupted into little more than a power struggle, but, that doesn't invalidate all the moral codes that the religion is based upon. The history of people is inexorably intertwined with religion. The majority of the moral codes the religion prescribes are a result of people trying to live amongst each other in a way that causes the least amount of harm to them all. If you don't understand this, or refuse to acknowledge it, you are foolish.
Prostitution is not just "paying for sex". It's not no-strings-attached sexual intercourse. There is no such thing. This is simply not how humans (or any animal for that matter) behave. The act of copulation is never done without risk for any living being. Again, if you refuse to believe this, you are delusional.
It's a great way to spread STDs (at rates far higher than would occur 'naturally')
Typically the prostitue is a woman who is at the mercy of a typically stronger man - with the inevitable results.
It 'encourages' human trafficing, pimping, etc. all of which are disruptive to a orderly society.
It is difficult to tax (I'm sure loads of people will jump on this one)
Aside from these reasons, it's degrading.
Face it, prostitution is not the sort of thing that a civilized society *wishes* to tolerate. This last reason might not sit too well with your sense of morality, or freedom, but mankind has struggled for millenia trying to better the human condition, and prostitution was singled out pretty quickly as a type of behaviour with a negative contribution coefficient. Not much has changed.
But once you feel that cool wind of neutrinos flowing up from the floor and blowing through your hair, that should be a fairly obvious hint that a star is exploding somewhere and deserving of your attention.
You sure, because my sister dated a Joe Weber from Princeton, who was also into physics in a big way. She got pregnant, but when we went to find the bast4&# all we found was this weird box with two aluminum tubes in it
C++ references hardly count as references since you can't reassign them...
I think your definition of reference needs re-evaluating if you wish to use re-assignment.
A reference to an object is just what it says. The reference is just another 'name' for the original object identifier. It doesn't make sense to 'reassign' a reference.
Example:
int A = 0;
int& B = A;
'B' refers to an integer object also refered to as 'A'. So, you can change the value of the integer object instance through either reference ('A', or 'B'), but just as you can't change which integer object instance that 'A' refers to, neither can you change which integer object instance that 'B' refers to. That wouldn't make any sense. Remember, you're the one told the compiler that you wanted to refer to that object as 'A' or 'B'.
I imagine that each member of your family has a name, and probably several other terms of endearment (references). You don't then use their name to refer to somebody else. Of course, sometimes you get name clashes (two people share the same name), but then you usually find you have to qualify their name (namespace), or rely upon context (scope) to know which person that you are referring to.
Slashdot Mirror
Here, let me help
wind and solar energy unprofitable. unprofitable as in WHAT ?
Unprofitable as in they don't make a profit.
the maintenance of wind farms are pathetically low compared to any other energy forms as far as i know. solar energy will go as far as the sun continues to exist.
The fact you tagged this on the the previous statement about profit indicates you think they have a positive correlation coefficient. One does not imply the other though.
wind energy is readily sufficiently efficient, without humongous investment on any companys' part. solar energy WILL become efficient soon, since the methods to capture sunlight is rapidly developing, since there is some investment flowing in recently
wind energy is inherently unreliable, solar has been under rapid development for decades, and it's still nowhere near as efficient as it need to be.
today companies want to profit without investing anything
Congratulations, you understand the purpose of incorporation, to make the most possible profit with the least possible risk. In fact, it's not only what they want, it's a legal requirement for their existence. Think of it as their feduciary duty to their shareholders, that might help make it more palatable.
i want to let you know i will evade anything with 'shell' logo or subsidiary logos on it
No more clam chowder for you then !
Wind and solar are a load of shit. They require huge upfront costs, have low reliability, and are hard to transport
You obviously haven't learned that facts like this don't matter to the greenies. They prefer to show their ignorance of basic science by accusing you of raping the land.
They're the same people who essentially killed the most promising form of green energy production known to man, nuclear, simply because they preferred to believe that f&%£ing traitor Jane Fonda in "The China Syndrome", instead of the scientifically provable facts.
The fight against ignoramuses is a never ending struggle; keep up the good work.
Sounds like a day in the life of your average resident of Siberia
I spit my wine out when I read that. Damn You !
Perhaps, but that would not solve the problem, only paste over it.
Wrong !
We have special rules for reporting about people of public interest, for a damn good reason. Most of them need chopping down a peg or two on a daily basis.
Basically, one could now commit a whole litany of crimes in plain view of the public,
Crimes, real crimes that is, are handled by the courts, and are a matter of public record. The reasons for being let go can be nothing more than a personality clash, hyped up as a gross dereliction of duty (or even worse). Individuals MUST be protected from corporations.
...imagine I was fired for sleeping with the directors daughter, who also happened to be the comptroller, and had access to my pay records (which would constitute gross misconduct, perhaps?), that doesn't mean the whole world should know that I porked her. Even the fact I was fired should be available only as a result of a direct enquiry, and I'm not even sure about that. It's not a crime to be fired from a company. In europe, (as far as I am aware) you may only ask a previous employer the following "Would you re-hire Mr. XXX"
As it should be.
You will never join facts unless you have a fact-joining intellectual toolkit
I don't disagree, but you need the facts too. So, which do you teach first. And, which is more important (and why) Again, these things are easily over-trivialized.
Be care what you classify as trivia. Unless you know facts, you can't collect those facts together and make meaningful statements about reality. Unless you know a diverse set of facts, you are unlikely to join two seemingly unrelated items and form a new concept. Facts are important, the ancients Greeks understood this well, and devoted a significant amount of their education to learning facts, and so produced some of the most progressive thinkers the world has ever known.
Me neither, I don't even like the word mashup. Mashups betray a lack of talent/knowledge/education/ability - and in the case of the word itself, a lack of rich vocabulary.
in breathless anticipation,
Not another reference to asthma ?
...to be poor parenting.
Get your lazy kid out of the freaking house, and make him/her run around and exercise those lungs. Force them to draw deep breaths, repeatedly. Make the lungs work and grow strong. Of course if you sit like a freaking lump, your lungs are weak. You ass-hats !
And you wonder why they are going to put up their own space station modules next year and beat us to a habitat on the moon
Because they stole the technology from the US ? Hell, they were having trouble mass producing bicycles 50 years ago !
... we don't even know what we're doing !
Surely typo's are a poor indication of 'smarts'
...that 80% of meetings are unnecessary. I think I'll patent some technology which addresses this issue.
I agree with a lot of what you said above - that is interesting in itself - but not all
I think this comment has gone too far though
I think publicly misrepresenting facts...
Sorry, you're completely changing the discussion. (But I don't disagree either)
... they have more important things on their minds right now. Just goes to show how staggeringly idiotic local (and national) level politicians can be.
Prostitution, like all moral codes about sex, spring from oppressive religions.
This is a naive and vastly trivialized point of view. Religion - and its rules - are created by man. Yes, religion is quite frequently corrupted into little more than a power struggle, but, that doesn't invalidate all the moral codes that the religion is based upon. The history of people is inexorably intertwined with religion. The majority of the moral codes the religion prescribes are a result of people trying to live amongst each other in a way that causes the least amount of harm to them all. If you don't understand this, or refuse to acknowledge it, you are foolish.
Prostitution is not just "paying for sex". It's not no-strings-attached sexual intercourse. There is no such thing. This is simply not how humans (or any animal for that matter) behave. The act of copulation is never done without risk for any living being. Again, if you refuse to believe this, you are delusional.
Hmm, let's see:
It's a great way to spread STDs (at rates far higher than would occur 'naturally')
Typically the prostitue is a woman who is at the mercy of a typically stronger man - with the inevitable results.
It 'encourages' human trafficing, pimping, etc. all of which are disruptive to a orderly society.
It is difficult to tax (I'm sure loads of people will jump on this one)
Aside from these reasons, it's degrading.
Face it, prostitution is not the sort of thing that a civilized society *wishes* to tolerate. This last reason might not sit too well with your sense of morality, or freedom, but mankind has struggled for millenia trying to better the human condition, and prostitution was singled out pretty quickly as a type of behaviour with a negative contribution coefficient. Not much has changed.
But once you feel that cool wind of neutrinos flowing up from the floor and blowing through your hair, that should be a fairly obvious hint that a star is exploding somewhere and deserving of your attention.
That or your bong needs a reload !
You sure, because my sister dated a Joe Weber from Princeton, who was also into physics in a big way. She got pregnant, but when we went to find the bast4&# all we found was this weird box with two aluminum tubes in it
...where's my surfboard ? I'm totally stoked, I want to be the first to ride a gravity wave, that'd be, like really heavy, man !
C++ references hardly count as references since you can't reassign them...
I think your definition of reference needs re-evaluating if you wish to use re-assignment.
A reference to an object is just what it says. The reference is just another 'name' for the original object identifier. It doesn't make sense to 'reassign' a reference.
Example:
int A = 0;
int& B = A;
'B' refers to an integer object also refered to as 'A'. So, you can change the value of the integer object instance through either reference ('A', or 'B'), but just as you can't change which integer object instance that 'A' refers to, neither can you change which integer object instance that 'B' refers to. That wouldn't make any sense. Remember, you're the one told the compiler that you wanted to refer to that object as 'A' or 'B'.
I imagine that each member of your family has a name, and probably several other terms of endearment (references). You don't then use their name to refer to somebody else. Of course, sometimes you get name clashes (two people share the same name), but then you usually find you have to qualify their name (namespace), or rely upon context (scope) to know which person that you are referring to.