I think the big tipping point will be one of two things (for all electric). Basically anyone who owns a car that does any long distance driving needs one of the two capabilities:
1) An abundance of charging stations available along at least major routes AND rapid charging technology that can charge the car in seconds or at most a few minutes.
2) A range of about 900km (560miles).
#1 is basically analogous to the capabilities of combustion engines, while #2 would allow you to hopefully not care that it takes a significant time to charge. To explain, one can comfortably drive about 900km in about 10h which is probably as far as anyone is want to drive in a single day. You could do 12, but it is a real drag, and I've done 18-20 which really is just crazy and people probably shouldn't. At 900km you get a full 10h of driving time in a day, to which you presumably would stop for the night, and then be able to simply charge slowly over hours while you sleep. Now you'd probably want a bit more than 900km in reserve just so you're not left high and dry should you have trouble finding a place to stop with a charging station.
Anyway both those are pretty tall orders for today's technology. There is a 3rd option, which is a bit of a hybrid of the two, where your charge time is say less than an hour, while at the same time your range is around 450km. This would allow say a driver to stop for lunch, charge, and continue on your way, again having a reserve might be nice to be able to go to dinner locally without ditching your car at the hotel to charge first. It would also require a lot more charging stations obviously.
We're not there on any of those fronts (yet), so while a totally electric car has its uses, it just isn't an option if you EVER want to use it for long distance driving. Current technology does fit the bill I think for commuter, around town, and short haul tripping now. So if that is ALL you plan on using it for, you're already good to go. Not really an issue for two car households where one car is conventional, and the other is all electric, as you have the flexibility to use the car best suited to your needs. That said, for single car households, if you ever plan on doing any real traveling it isn't an option (unless you want to spend thousands renting a conventional car for the few times you might need it a year).
Anyway I looked at the math and how it might work in practice, but it just doesn't work yet (at least insofar as my requirements), and given technological advances, probably won't for sometime (though I think we'll get there eventually... ha! no pun intended!). As a commuter car, it is probably the most reasonable, and is analogous to the two car setup that many households have where in the past one might be smaller and more economical on gas for commuting which is what it would be used for 90% of the time. As someone who doesn't commute to work, with a one household car, that does at least two long trips a year, the logic just doesn't exist yet.
I know one EV I've lusted at (that will probably never get built or exist) is the Bollinger, which I think has a fictional range of 200 miles (320km), and despite all the ways in which I might work the numbers and try to figure out how it might work, just wouldn't. That said, were I rich and not care and could own multiple cars, for sure! However for now, and for the foreseeable future, the EV rests solidly limited to the commuter role, and sales will reflect that. Should the above limitations be surpassed, that is when sales and the market for EV's truly take over from combustion and probably spell the end of the combustion car with the exception of collectors...
To be fair they are just a product of the US political landscape.
In Canada we basically have Conservatives and Liberals (and NDP further left). However in comparison to their US compatriots even the Democrats are far right of what we might even call Conservatives. Within the Democrats there are those like poor old Bernie Sanders that might be considered a bit more comparable, but they would be in the minority (hence his unacceptance as a leader).
Also I feel the decision to bailout VS not to bailout was likely also strongly influenced by the bailout option being a relatively understood option in that what would happen was fairly predictable. On the other side, who the hell knows what would have really happened should all those banks failed, could have been chaos, not only nationally, but for individuals as well.
"Handed wall street and corporations vast amounts of money?"
Actually as I recall he did. He bailed out the banks and wallstreet due to the subprime mortgage crisis and the derivative debt trading. He did this very early into office. While abhorrent, I don't actually blame him. Again it was a mess that was left to him by Bush, and to a certain extent (as much as a politician can be at cause for that sort or activity) caused by him though deregulation of the banking industry (increasing the debt ratio banks could use for transactions, and allowing those lending practices). I'm sure when he got the file it was a one of those best of two evils type decisions, where the impact of the bailout was determined to be much less that the potential impact of letting the financial institutions go under (the whole too big to fail argument).
Which by the way if I were to draw a recent analogy with Trumps BS rhetoric about using sections of an act used to protect US security interests in terms of trade deals, it seems to me having financial institutions that are too big to fail having the autonomy to potentially sink the entire nation might be a much larger US security concern than how much Steel or Aluminum is imported from it's closest ally Canada.
I think you have it wrong. By all accounts actual conservatives hate him as much or more than democrats. He got elected for a number of reasons, however in terms of this conversation, primary among them was pandering to those that felt disenfranchised by current politics, which got him the Republic nomination. At which point, the rest of the conservative voters have a choice to vote for him or the Democrats, and I guess it looks like at least at the time (who knows how it would go in hindsight now that they know what they ended up getting), and he seemed a more palatable choice than switching sides, which I expect for many Republicans was a non-starter. In effect the Republican nomination was the point of failure and the rest just a foregone conclusion. That said, I remember watching the circus, and as much as the nomination process was at fault, much blame could be squarely put on the Republican party itself, as I recall they had like 16! candidates which in itself is crazy, only surpassed by how horrible all of them really were. In effect, was that the best that the Republican party had to offer the voting public, and if so they shouldn't really be all that surprised when it all ends going up sideways on them.
LOL ya. The base is at least 5x too small. I've seen the amount of concrete that goes into these things and it is a lot (like iceberg type surface/subsurface weight ratio). Whoever did that back in 2002 either didn't know what they were doing, or were negligent to the point of organized crime type fraud to skimp on concrete in order to save money as the lowest bidder. On top of that, being damaged by lighting it could be that it wasn't operational enough to take counter measures during adverse winds. I know in certain cases, the direction or the rotation of the blades would be normally altered to minimize impact. Seeing as it was damaged and "decommissioned", it was probably more accurately described as abandoned. So all of those things make it little surprise that it toppled over in a typhoon type occurrence.
To be fair, their focus is on what sells. What sells are laptops and servers. What they both need is low power. What the later needs is multiple cores and scalability.
So what we get produced in volume are low power multiple core processors. There isn't demand for bleeding edge speed, so they aren't building for it.
It's been trending that way for 5 to 10 years now. I started noticing when they started to have improvement margins between generations of single digits, while getting +25% power savings, as that was the real goal. In fact even the performance margins can be more explained by having the chip run on less power, generating less heat, allowing it to be slightly tweaked to justify a small performance increase across generations.
Anyway the good old days are likely over baring some sort of magic leap. Now if only all the bitcoin jerks will hurry up and crash and burn so we can afford a decent video card that would be nice...
Capitalism is simply a method of exchange that tends to find efficiencies in the system. As we've seen, left unchecked (unregulated) it can lead to wealth inequality through political interference, however that isn't even the point they are trying to make.
What they seem to be talking about is consumerism/consumption and the false assumption that ever increasing growth will continue forever, which is a pretty obvious statement really, though a bit scary when you look at how many markets depend on it being true seemingly.
Anyway as I would see it, even as resources grow scarce Capitalism could still play an important role to make sure what resources are there are used most effectively.
That said, on review I see they do mention rising debt levels and wealth inequality. However as mentioned, that is only tangentially caused by Capitalism, and is more a symptom of corruption and political interference preventing proper regulation. I mean when you look at how things are now, the most wealth is generated by debt now, and that can't really be a good success indicator...
Look how many times you talk about "rural" and "hunting". How many household in 1950's were sporting handguns?
The problems are guns, predominately handguns, in urban areas. Hunting guns in rural areas aren't really the issue of "gun culture".
My Dad did basically the same thing, attended a one room school, and the village he lived in so small that the only thing to do was hunt and fish, so you started off very young. I remember him telling me about saving like 3$ (or something very low anyway) to buy a single shot 20 gauge shotgun from Sears as the first gun he owned (and still has). My dad took me hunting probably when I was 12 or earlier. I don't hunt now or own any guns as I live in an urban area...
Similarly to handguns, an AR-15 with a 30 round clip isn't something you need for hunting. In Canada simple regulation like limiting clip size to 5 rounds and restricting handguns seems pretty common sense. I mean if you are actually hunting, and you miss the first 5 shots at whatever you're firing at, you probably aren't going to get it anyway with the next 25 rounds either....
I've said for years, I'm not lazy, I'm just super efficient. If I can do the exact same thing, whilst expending the least amount of effort, you're damn right that is a evolutionary trait.
Lazy is just a derogatory way of saying efficiency. So long as the "work" gets done of course.
One could argue that I write scripts to automate trivial tasks because I'm too lazy to do those tasks, or one could argue that I'm more efficient for finding a way to complete those tasks using the least amount of energy I need to do. Although I'll admit I'm a bit OCD about it at times in say running errands or the like, where some might argue that there are many ways to accomplish the same task, while I'll respond that there is only one way (to minimize effort and time). It bothers me to do otherwise. My girlfriend thinks it is weird that I eat each thing individually in order of thermal dissipation (i.e. what gets cold the quickest), whereas I think it is weird not to...
I know here in Canada (and the US) there are many cars that we do not have access to because they basically don't (and cannot) meet modern safety standards. I know over the years some which were available needed to leave because of that (Land Rover Defender is one example). There are a lot of cool cars out there in the world that we never have the opportunity to own because of this (or even import).
That said, there are exemptions for classic cars, of which there are tons on the road. In addition, things like legal motorcycles have nothing like the required safety standards of cars, just seeming they exist just fine. The latest is electronic scooters and the like that all share the same roads... Why is this the case? How is it that a car for example that doesn't have an airbag is seemingly too dangerous for the public to drive on roads, but a motorcycle is?
Your comments and a couple others are the most pertinent I've seen. It's a complex issue. Adding to yours:
1) Another poster mentions the fact that by definition it means that the resources and institutions are held privately VS nationally. This is at the heart of the Canadian and US softwood lumber dispute. Whereas most of the lumber produce in the US comes from private land, to which the supposed "market" dictates the production cost, in Canada most of it is produced from Crown or national land, by which the government charges stumpage fees. The whole arguement can be boiled down to that the US believes that the fees that Canada charges are lower than that determined by the US market, and thus an unfair advantage (disproven twice btw).
2) It is also a means or tool of efficiency, which is really good at what it does, but the end result, left unchecked, has obvious results in wealth inequality.
3) As you and another eloquently put it, under the current framework, the wealthy more so in recent years than most, have more less "pulled the ladder up" after themselves to ensure that only they and their offspring have the advantage, done as you say largely through government manipulation. Which could be also argued is not a failure of capitalism, but in the system of democracy being employed that allows for it. The fact that Trump runs the show is a pretty good indication is this. Considering the only really tangible thing he's done is a tax bill that overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy, and even makes one of the worst wealth inequality offenders, the Estate Tax even more lopsided towards people collecting all the money at the top and keeping it there indefinitely.
Anyway blaming capitalism is a simplistic view, as it is more about how it is implemented, and indeed how it fits into the political framework. However given how things have gone for years now, it isn't really all that surprising that a younger generation isn't all that keen on the system which seems to be failing most of them. Hence all those protests from young people about the 1% and occupy wall street, etc... That said look how many people voted for the Republicans, though again one could argue that at least in this regard the Democrats are not really any different. As a last note, none of this is really new, and all of it has existed at one point or another during history, it's more about how far that pendulum has been allowed to swing in modern times.
Perhaps they don't anymore and just sold it? Otherwise would seem very strange to buy controlling interest in a company, then boycott it's only product...
While the experience might be a bit different in the US, it's probably much the same as in Canada, and largely do do with training and certification.
1) Getting your pilots licence is expensive. 2) Going to college for your commercial pilots licence is very expensive. 3) Even after graduation, you will need X number of hours before you are certified for even the worst most rural routes. 4) Getting hours is very hard to do. 5) Jobs like pilot training and the like pay very little (after rental, fuel, hanger fees, etc). 6) About the only way to get your hours is the Air Force (However in Canada at least, there is little opportunity, and few living options).
So yeah, if it is very expensive to become one, with very few opportunities, and difficult certifications to meet, as the older pilots retire or burn out there will be a lack of pilots ready to fill in. They don't just come out of thin air (ha! pardon pun). From what I've heard the hardest part is getting your required hours while not living in the poor house or going into serious debt. So if airlines took a bit of responsibility and say had programs for assisted training whereby prospective pilots could get some seat time as part of a work program that might help in the long term. However like most companies, they just expect employees to somehow just be magically trained and ready to go with the required experience.
You're also only accounting for the turbines themselves. Are you considering the construction costs (perhaps)? However you're likely not including the real estate costs, which if it is on private land can be very significant. Even if trying to offset using landowner agreements, either considerable lump sum payments will be need to be made or a percentage of profit will be going to landowners. 631 large wind turbines is going to cover a pretty large amount of land, and in a lot of cases, some of the most expensive (i.e. waterfront). It is literally the #1 reason they don't get built, landowner objections. Nuclear by comparison is pretty compact as far as foot print goes on the landscape. Anyway its apples and oranges and they shouldn't really be compared in the same breath regardless. Anyone talking about renewables (apart from Hydro) and nuclear as the same thing should probably just be ignored. Now if they want to compare nuclear to coal, gas, oil, etc... sure, they have similar capabilities, even some advantages such as shut down and spin up time, and some obvious disadvantages, but at least it is in the same ball park.
Yeah I've seen the profit sharing deals which I thought were interesting, though I've also seen lump sum payments also. I always like the idea of the profit sharing as it gives the landowner a sort of vested interest in the operation.
That said, while the article is obviously pretty biased, it raises a good question, one that I've raised a number of times. When these things are built they are only profitable due to the subsided price of electricity they get paid for. The electrical contracts are about the same as the expected life of the windmills being built or nearly so. Which means that once that expires, if they are not renewed, or if electrical pricing isn't going to make it profitable why would the company continue business. Now most of the costs are associated in the building and construction, and presumably to retrofit or refurbish the turbine would be a lot cheaper than a new install, so perhaps could be made profitable again. Anyway a fair amount of risk for the landowner. Even if a fund was setup, unless it was an independent one, if they go bankrupt, likely those funds would go to any creditors, Anyway with the glut of wind power that has gone up over the last number of years, there very well could be a bit of a issue in 20 years or so where all of these things are more less going to EOL and end of contract more less at the same time. Could be that turbine repairmen will be a hot commodity around then trying to salvage them on behalf of stranded landowners.
Ya I have very little sympathy for her. It seems she went out of her way to say that she was "off the clock", yet the entire series of tweets both before and after are literally all about her work. If they were personal tweets, about personal things, and she had the same tirade, then perhaps I'd be a bit more critical of her being fired over it.
Most people in this technological age know to be careful around social media particular about your job. I never ever discuss work on social media... ever. For exactly that reason. You could say something wrong in the moment, or perhaps have something taken out of context, and have it come back to bite you in how you make a living. Heck folks that aren't even in IT know better for the most part. Teachers, Police, etc... all usually don't post anything, or have more less burner accounts under fake names to give at least some anonymity (and not have students looking you up, etc...).
Anyway considering how easy she took offence and made a mountain out of a molehill, I can see why they didn't want she around professionally. I'm sure everyone has had someone tell them how to do your job. The mature and professional thing to do is take whatever worth from it if any, politely say "thanks for your input, I really appreciate it", or simply just ignore it. Flying off the handle on social media... has well predictable results.
That said who knows the context, perhaps this happens to her everyday, and she just got sick of it and blew up... unfortunate for her anyway.
I always think of this when these programming language debates come along on here. Different languages are better at different things.
If I want to quickly throw something together with a pretty limited scope, you can do that with VB. If you're making something that is more critical, large, or fast, use something else.
I've found that two factors basically make not so much bad code, but bad applications:
The first usually happens with scope creep. Someone tacks something together using some high level language that solves some interim problem that works, but is only meant for that one thing and typically for a short period of time. Then because that thing works, gets used forever, gets bastardized into doing other things, and eventually you get a mess because it was never meant to be used that way using the technology it was built with.
The second thing I forget because apparently my brain has decided to not cooperate.
Anyway the other big difference between some languages is some are very "forgiving" while others are decidedly not. This means using one, a coder might make a lot of say bad decisions, yet still make something that "works", though perhaps not so optimal (and as mentioned, may run into trouble later). The other, in most cases won't let you get something that "works" unless you've more less done it "right" making for some better code. However at the same time, usually if you've done something wrong and it does work, it is something really bad. If any of that makes any sense...
Anyway I don't code much anymore, and when I do it is of the lighter smaller variety. Mostly just to make my life easier through automation of horrible repetitive tasks using VBA or Python. I use those mostly because of convenience and compatibility with other leveraged software. You could technically do more less the same thing with any number of languages, however it would probably take longer and would probably be overkill in most cases. The last time I used C++ was probably 17 years ago lol (along with a another scripting language that doesn't really exist anymore)
Second looking at how even the Canadian rankings, I'm not sure I'd put too much stock into the "Global Rankings", particularly when you look at the methodology used. Though I guess that really depends on how you define what makes up a "top" university.
Unless a lot has changed in the last 20 years at least some of the Canadian rankings look a bit odd. When I went to university I went to one that at the time was ranking #1 for undergraduate work (i.e different category than say U of Toronto) and Carlton for example (which somehow beats it by a lot "globally") was labeled "last chance U" if you couldn't get into anywhere else...
Looking at the rankings a lot of it seems like subjective ideas about how much research may or may not take place at a university, how big the university is, and how many papers (which as described in slashdot many times is currently a problem with bogus papers and expected volume).
Basically the ranking are a combination of how well known a university is, and how many papers do they publish. Not sure that is a accurate metric of what makes a top school.The US number could simply be a metric of the pressure to produce papers within their framework for money, and how well known by the fact that Hollywood references US universities a lot and with a lot of money they probably do a lot more self promotion than most...
"I'm not saying someone is not replaceable, what I am saying is that getting rid of everyone who knows how things fit together in the broader picture is a shit decision."
I figured that out a few years ago. I'd also add, that while anyone is replaceable, the replacement may not be really all that effective for a period of time, say 5 years, during which time the business is going to suffer. Also the broader picture is not always something the manager is really all concerned about, more about there here and now bonus, and move on.
Unfortunately those are long term impacts. I've found that most managers are older, and most are either at the end of their careers and close to retirement, or moving onward and upward to their next management gig within a few years anyway... They they get the savings and the bonus, move on, and if the business is screwed for 5-10 years afterwards, well that is someone else's problem...
Slashdot Mirror
I think the big tipping point will be one of two things (for all electric). Basically anyone who owns a car that does any long distance driving needs one of the two capabilities:
1) An abundance of charging stations available along at least major routes AND rapid charging technology that can charge the car in seconds or at most a few minutes.
2) A range of about 900km (560miles).
#1 is basically analogous to the capabilities of combustion engines, while #2 would allow you to hopefully not care that it takes a significant time to charge. To explain, one can comfortably drive about 900km in about 10h which is probably as far as anyone is want to drive in a single day. You could do 12, but it is a real drag, and I've done 18-20 which really is just crazy and people probably shouldn't. At 900km you get a full 10h of driving time in a day, to which you presumably would stop for the night, and then be able to simply charge slowly over hours while you sleep. Now you'd probably want a bit more than 900km in reserve just so you're not left high and dry should you have trouble finding a place to stop with a charging station.
Anyway both those are pretty tall orders for today's technology. There is a 3rd option, which is a bit of a hybrid of the two, where your charge time is say less than an hour, while at the same time your range is around 450km. This would allow say a driver to stop for lunch, charge, and continue on your way, again having a reserve might be nice to be able to go to dinner locally without ditching your car at the hotel to charge first. It would also require a lot more charging stations obviously.
We're not there on any of those fronts (yet), so while a totally electric car has its uses, it just isn't an option if you EVER want to use it for long distance driving. Current technology does fit the bill I think for commuter, around town, and short haul tripping now. So if that is ALL you plan on using it for, you're already good to go. Not really an issue for two car households where one car is conventional, and the other is all electric, as you have the flexibility to use the car best suited to your needs. That said, for single car households, if you ever plan on doing any real traveling it isn't an option (unless you want to spend thousands renting a conventional car for the few times you might need it a year).
Anyway I looked at the math and how it might work in practice, but it just doesn't work yet (at least insofar as my requirements), and given technological advances, probably won't for sometime (though I think we'll get there eventually... ha! no pun intended!). As a commuter car, it is probably the most reasonable, and is analogous to the two car setup that many households have where in the past one might be smaller and more economical on gas for commuting which is what it would be used for 90% of the time. As someone who doesn't commute to work, with a one household car, that does at least two long trips a year, the logic just doesn't exist yet.
I know one EV I've lusted at (that will probably never get built or exist) is the Bollinger, which I think has a fictional range of 200 miles (320km), and despite all the ways in which I might work the numbers and try to figure out how it might work, just wouldn't. That said, were I rich and not care and could own multiple cars, for sure! However for now, and for the foreseeable future, the EV rests solidly limited to the commuter role, and sales will reflect that. Should the above limitations be surpassed, that is when sales and the market for EV's truly take over from combustion and probably spell the end of the combustion car with the exception of collectors...
I have no idea if any of this is remotely true, or even if it is if it really matters.
However, I tip my tinfoil hat to you sir!
To be fair they are just a product of the US political landscape.
In Canada we basically have Conservatives and Liberals (and NDP further left). However in comparison to their US compatriots even the Democrats are far right of what we might even call Conservatives. Within the Democrats there are those like poor old Bernie Sanders that might be considered a bit more comparable, but they would be in the minority (hence his unacceptance as a leader).
Oops, meant to add... better the "devil you know" as the saying goes...
Also I feel the decision to bailout VS not to bailout was likely also strongly influenced by the bailout option being a relatively understood option in that what would happen was fairly predictable. On the other side, who the hell knows what would have really happened should all those banks failed, could have been chaos, not only nationally, but for individuals as well.
"Handed wall street and corporations vast amounts of money?"
Actually as I recall he did. He bailed out the banks and wallstreet due to the subprime mortgage crisis and the derivative debt trading. He did this very early into office. While abhorrent, I don't actually blame him. Again it was a mess that was left to him by Bush, and to a certain extent (as much as a politician can be at cause for that sort or activity) caused by him though deregulation of the banking industry (increasing the debt ratio banks could use for transactions, and allowing those lending practices). I'm sure when he got the file it was a one of those best of two evils type decisions, where the impact of the bailout was determined to be much less that the potential impact of letting the financial institutions go under (the whole too big to fail argument).
Which by the way if I were to draw a recent analogy with Trumps BS rhetoric about using sections of an act used to protect US security interests in terms of trade deals, it seems to me having financial institutions that are too big to fail having the autonomy to potentially sink the entire nation might be a much larger US security concern than how much Steel or Aluminum is imported from it's closest ally Canada.
I think you have it wrong. By all accounts actual conservatives hate him as much or more than democrats. He got elected for a number of reasons, however in terms of this conversation, primary among them was pandering to those that felt disenfranchised by current politics, which got him the Republic nomination. At which point, the rest of the conservative voters have a choice to vote for him or the Democrats, and I guess it looks like at least at the time (who knows how it would go in hindsight now that they know what they ended up getting), and he seemed a more palatable choice than switching sides, which I expect for many Republicans was a non-starter. In effect the Republican nomination was the point of failure and the rest just a foregone conclusion. That said, I remember watching the circus, and as much as the nomination process was at fault, much blame could be squarely put on the Republican party itself, as I recall they had like 16! candidates which in itself is crazy, only surpassed by how horrible all of them really were. In effect, was that the best that the Republican party had to offer the voting public, and if so they shouldn't really be all that surprised when it all ends going up sideways on them.
LOL ya. The base is at least 5x too small. I've seen the amount of concrete that goes into these things and it is a lot (like iceberg type surface/subsurface weight ratio). Whoever did that back in 2002 either didn't know what they were doing, or were negligent to the point of organized crime type fraud to skimp on concrete in order to save money as the lowest bidder. On top of that, being damaged by lighting it could be that it wasn't operational enough to take counter measures during adverse winds. I know in certain cases, the direction or the rotation of the blades would be normally altered to minimize impact. Seeing as it was damaged and "decommissioned", it was probably more accurately described as abandoned. So all of those things make it little surprise that it toppled over in a typhoon type occurrence.
To be fair, their focus is on what sells. What sells are laptops and servers. What they both need is low power. What the later needs is multiple cores and scalability.
So what we get produced in volume are low power multiple core processors. There isn't demand for bleeding edge speed, so they aren't building for it.
It's been trending that way for 5 to 10 years now. I started noticing when they started to have improvement margins between generations of single digits, while getting +25% power savings, as that was the real goal. In fact even the performance margins can be more explained by having the chip run on less power, generating less heat, allowing it to be slightly tweaked to justify a small performance increase across generations.
Anyway the good old days are likely over baring some sort of magic leap. Now if only all the bitcoin jerks will hurry up and crash and burn so we can afford a decent video card that would be nice...
I don't think it means what they think it means.
Capitalism is simply a method of exchange that tends to find efficiencies in the system. As we've seen, left unchecked (unregulated) it can lead to wealth inequality through political interference, however that isn't even the point they are trying to make.
What they seem to be talking about is consumerism/consumption and the false assumption that ever increasing growth will continue forever, which is a pretty obvious statement really, though a bit scary when you look at how many markets depend on it being true seemingly.
Anyway as I would see it, even as resources grow scarce Capitalism could still play an important role to make sure what resources are there are used most effectively.
That said, on review I see they do mention rising debt levels and wealth inequality. However as mentioned, that is only tangentially caused by Capitalism, and is more a symptom of corruption and political interference preventing proper regulation. I mean when you look at how things are now, the most wealth is generated by debt now, and that can't really be a good success indicator...
I think you just proved the point.
Look how many times you talk about "rural" and "hunting". How many household in 1950's were sporting handguns?
The problems are guns, predominately handguns, in urban areas. Hunting guns in rural areas aren't really the issue of "gun culture".
My Dad did basically the same thing, attended a one room school, and the village he lived in so small that the only thing to do was hunt and fish, so you started off very young. I remember him telling me about saving like 3$ (or something very low anyway) to buy a single shot 20 gauge shotgun from Sears as the first gun he owned (and still has). My dad took me hunting probably when I was 12 or earlier. I don't hunt now or own any guns as I live in an urban area...
Similarly to handguns, an AR-15 with a 30 round clip isn't something you need for hunting. In Canada simple regulation like limiting clip size to 5 rounds and restricting handguns seems pretty common sense. I mean if you are actually hunting, and you miss the first 5 shots at whatever you're firing at, you probably aren't going to get it anyway with the next 25 rounds either....
When I first heard about it I was thinking great, here come all the BS about video games causing gun violence.... Then I saw it was Madden 19!
I think this should put the argument to rest. I mean a football game, really?
Also is it just me or is Florida batshit crazy with the guns?
I've said for years, I'm not lazy, I'm just super efficient. If I can do the exact same thing, whilst expending the least amount of effort, you're damn right that is a evolutionary trait.
Lazy is just a derogatory way of saying efficiency. So long as the "work" gets done of course.
One could argue that I write scripts to automate trivial tasks because I'm too lazy to do those tasks, or one could argue that I'm more efficient for finding a way to complete those tasks using the least amount of energy I need to do. Although I'll admit I'm a bit OCD about it at times in say running errands or the like, where some might argue that there are many ways to accomplish the same task, while I'll respond that there is only one way (to minimize effort and time). It bothers me to do otherwise. My girlfriend thinks it is weird that I eat each thing individually in order of thermal dissipation (i.e. what gets cold the quickest), whereas I think it is weird not to...
So I have a legitimate question (I think).
I know here in Canada (and the US) there are many cars that we do not have access to because they basically don't (and cannot) meet modern safety standards. I know over the years some which were available needed to leave because of that (Land Rover Defender is one example). There are a lot of cool cars out there in the world that we never have the opportunity to own because of this (or even import).
That said, there are exemptions for classic cars, of which there are tons on the road. In addition, things like legal motorcycles have nothing like the required safety standards of cars, just seeming they exist just fine. The latest is electronic scooters and the like that all share the same roads... Why is this the case? How is it that a car for example that doesn't have an airbag is seemingly too dangerous for the public to drive on roads, but a motorcycle is?
Your comments and a couple others are the most pertinent I've seen. It's a complex issue. Adding to yours:
1) Another poster mentions the fact that by definition it means that the resources and institutions are held privately VS nationally. This is at the heart of the Canadian and US softwood lumber dispute. Whereas most of the lumber produce in the US comes from private land, to which the supposed "market" dictates the production cost, in Canada most of it is produced from Crown or national land, by which the government charges stumpage fees. The whole arguement can be boiled down to that the US believes that the fees that Canada charges are lower than that determined by the US market, and thus an unfair advantage (disproven twice btw).
2) It is also a means or tool of efficiency, which is really good at what it does, but the end result, left unchecked, has obvious results in wealth inequality.
3) As you and another eloquently put it, under the current framework, the wealthy more so in recent years than most, have more less "pulled the ladder up" after themselves to ensure that only they and their offspring have the advantage, done as you say largely through government manipulation. Which could be also argued is not a failure of capitalism, but in the system of democracy being employed that allows for it. The fact that Trump runs the show is a pretty good indication is this. Considering the only really tangible thing he's done is a tax bill that overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy, and even makes one of the worst wealth inequality offenders, the Estate Tax even more lopsided towards people collecting all the money at the top and keeping it there indefinitely.
Anyway blaming capitalism is a simplistic view, as it is more about how it is implemented, and indeed how it fits into the political framework. However given how things have gone for years now, it isn't really all that surprising that a younger generation isn't all that keen on the system which seems to be failing most of them. Hence all those protests from young people about the 1% and occupy wall street, etc... That said look how many people voted for the Republicans, though again one could argue that at least in this regard the Democrats are not really any different. As a last note, none of this is really new, and all of it has existed at one point or another during history, it's more about how far that pendulum has been allowed to swing in modern times.
Perhaps they don't anymore and just sold it? Otherwise would seem very strange to buy controlling interest in a company, then boycott it's only product...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/busines...
and
http://www.cbc.ca/news/busines...
In the Soviet Russia, Adidas Spies on You!
So I like the idea of there being one and only one Moon. Our Moon.
Just like there is one Sun, the rest are just stars.
So Jupiter has zero Moons. But does have a bunch of orbiting debris around it, some of which are quite large! :)
While the experience might be a bit different in the US, it's probably much the same as in Canada, and largely do do with training and certification.
1) Getting your pilots licence is expensive.
2) Going to college for your commercial pilots licence is very expensive.
3) Even after graduation, you will need X number of hours before you are certified for even the worst most rural routes.
4) Getting hours is very hard to do.
5) Jobs like pilot training and the like pay very little (after rental, fuel, hanger fees, etc).
6) About the only way to get your hours is the Air Force (However in Canada at least, there is little opportunity, and few living options).
So yeah, if it is very expensive to become one, with very few opportunities, and difficult certifications to meet, as the older pilots retire or burn out there will be a lack of pilots ready to fill in. They don't just come out of thin air (ha! pardon pun). From what I've heard the hardest part is getting your required hours while not living in the poor house or going into serious debt. So if airlines took a bit of responsibility and say had programs for assisted training whereby prospective pilots could get some seat time as part of a work program that might help in the long term. However like most companies, they just expect employees to somehow just be magically trained and ready to go with the required experience.
You're also only accounting for the turbines themselves. Are you considering the construction costs (perhaps)? However you're likely not including the real estate costs, which if it is on private land can be very significant. Even if trying to offset using landowner agreements, either considerable lump sum payments will be need to be made or a percentage of profit will be going to landowners. 631 large wind turbines is going to cover a pretty large amount of land, and in a lot of cases, some of the most expensive (i.e. waterfront). It is literally the #1 reason they don't get built, landowner objections. Nuclear by comparison is pretty compact as far as foot print goes on the landscape. Anyway its apples and oranges and they shouldn't really be compared in the same breath regardless. Anyone talking about renewables (apart from Hydro) and nuclear as the same thing should probably just be ignored. Now if they want to compare nuclear to coal, gas, oil, etc... sure, they have similar capabilities, even some advantages such as shut down and spin up time, and some obvious disadvantages, but at least it is in the same ball park.
Yeah I've seen the profit sharing deals which I thought were interesting, though I've also seen lump sum payments also. I always like the idea of the profit sharing as it gives the landowner a sort of vested interest in the operation.
That said, while the article is obviously pretty biased, it raises a good question, one that I've raised a number of times. When these things are built they are only profitable due to the subsided price of electricity they get paid for. The electrical contracts are about the same as the expected life of the windmills being built or nearly so. Which means that once that expires, if they are not renewed, or if electrical pricing isn't going to make it profitable why would the company continue business. Now most of the costs are associated in the building and construction, and presumably to retrofit or refurbish the turbine would be a lot cheaper than a new install, so perhaps could be made profitable again. Anyway a fair amount of risk for the landowner. Even if a fund was setup, unless it was an independent one, if they go bankrupt, likely those funds would go to any creditors, Anyway with the glut of wind power that has gone up over the last number of years, there very well could be a bit of a issue in 20 years or so where all of these things are more less going to EOL and end of contract more less at the same time. Could be that turbine repairmen will be a hot commodity around then trying to salvage them on behalf of stranded landowners.
Ya I have very little sympathy for her. It seems she went out of her way to say that she was "off the clock", yet the entire series of tweets both before and after are literally all about her work. If they were personal tweets, about personal things, and she had the same tirade, then perhaps I'd be a bit more critical of her being fired over it.
Most people in this technological age know to be careful around social media particular about your job. I never ever discuss work on social media... ever. For exactly that reason. You could say something wrong in the moment, or perhaps have something taken out of context, and have it come back to bite you in how you make a living. Heck folks that aren't even in IT know better for the most part. Teachers, Police, etc... all usually don't post anything, or have more less burner accounts under fake names to give at least some anonymity (and not have students looking you up, etc...).
Anyway considering how easy she took offence and made a mountain out of a molehill, I can see why they didn't want she around professionally. I'm sure everyone has had someone tell them how to do your job. The mature and professional thing to do is take whatever worth from it if any, politely say "thanks for your input, I really appreciate it", or simply just ignore it. Flying off the handle on social media... has well predictable results.
That said who knows the context, perhaps this happens to her everyday, and she just got sick of it and blew up... unfortunate for her anyway.
When all you have is a hammer...
I always think of this when these programming language debates come along on here. Different languages are better at different things.
If I want to quickly throw something together with a pretty limited scope, you can do that with VB. If you're making something that is more critical, large, or fast, use something else.
I've found that two factors basically make not so much bad code, but bad applications:
The first usually happens with scope creep. Someone tacks something together using some high level language that solves some interim problem that works, but is only meant for that one thing and typically for a short period of time. Then because that thing works, gets used forever, gets bastardized into doing other things, and eventually you get a mess because it was never meant to be used that way using the technology it was built with.
The second thing I forget because apparently my brain has decided to not cooperate.
Anyway the other big difference between some languages is some are very "forgiving" while others are decidedly not. This means using one, a coder might make a lot of say bad decisions, yet still make something that "works", though perhaps not so optimal (and as mentioned, may run into trouble later). The other, in most cases won't let you get something that "works" unless you've more less done it "right" making for some better code. However at the same time, usually if you've done something wrong and it does work, it is something really bad. If any of that makes any sense...
Anyway I don't code much anymore, and when I do it is of the lighter smaller variety. Mostly just to make my life easier through automation of horrible repetitive tasks using VBA or Python. I use those mostly because of convenience and compatibility with other leveraged software. You could technically do more less the same thing with any number of languages, however it would probably take longer and would probably be overkill in most cases. The last time I used C++ was probably 17 years ago lol (along with a another scripting language that doesn't really exist anymore)
Two things:
One is Canada has 3 in the top 50.
Second looking at how even the Canadian rankings, I'm not sure I'd put too much stock into the "Global Rankings", particularly when you look at the methodology used. Though I guess that really depends on how you define what makes up a "top" university.
Unless a lot has changed in the last 20 years at least some of the Canadian rankings look a bit odd. When I went to university I went to one that at the time was ranking #1 for undergraduate work (i.e different category than say U of Toronto) and Carlton for example (which somehow beats it by a lot "globally") was labeled "last chance U" if you couldn't get into anywhere else...
Looking at the rankings a lot of it seems like subjective ideas about how much research may or may not take place at a university, how big the university is, and how many papers (which as described in slashdot many times is currently a problem with bogus papers and expected volume).
Basically the ranking are a combination of how well known a university is, and how many papers do they publish. Not sure that is a accurate metric of what makes a top school.The US number could simply be a metric of the pressure to produce papers within their framework for money, and how well known by the fact that Hollywood references US universities a lot and with a lot of money they probably do a lot more self promotion than most...
"I'm not saying someone is not replaceable, what I am saying is that getting rid of everyone who knows how things fit together in the broader picture is a shit decision."
I figured that out a few years ago. I'd also add, that while anyone is replaceable, the replacement may not be really all that effective for a period of time, say 5 years, during which time the business is going to suffer. Also the broader picture is not always something the manager is really all concerned about, more about there here and now bonus, and move on.
Unfortunately those are long term impacts. I've found that most managers are older, and most are either at the end of their careers and close to retirement, or moving onward and upward to their next management gig within a few years anyway... They they get the savings and the bonus, move on, and if the business is screwed for 5-10 years afterwards, well that is someone else's problem...