Most food is not local, not even close. Take a look at the small print when you're at the supermarket; around here (central NY state) most of it, especially during the winter and spring, comes from places like California, Florida, Mexico, Argentina, even China. Bread is one of the few exceptions (and the wheat isn't grown locally, either).
To date, solar simply isn't cost effective without subsidies, artificial inflation of other energy sources and the threat of other technology being regulated out of the markets.
Well... yeah. If you ignore the externalities (like pollution, or dependence on foreign oil), then solar is not cost effective (and neither is wind or biodiesel or any other renewable source). That's the whole point of subsidies and the other stuff you mention; the free market doesn't account for externalities, that's why they're externalities.
If you bank all your money on solar power,
Who said anything about "all" the money? I think a diversified approach would work best.
I also think that a carbon tax would be a much better solution than subsidies for particular technologies, since it would encourage people to use the most effective emission-reducing measures, rather than the ones that happen to be in vogue with the regulators. But it doesn't look like we'll get that anytime soon.
You are right, of course. Solar power is not cost effective. Government subsidies for green tech distort the market, and are unsustainable. The only sane thing to do is wait for Ayn Rand to descend from the heavens and tell us what to do (I obviously can't predict what that will be, but I bet it'll involve income tax cuts for the upper brackets). And none of that matters anyway, because there's no such thing as global warming.
On most days, the average mail carrier is capable of carrying much more mail. They have to walk the entire route every day, even if they're carrying only a fraction of their maximum capacity; so the capacity is not the limiting factor. So I can see how eliminating one delivery day can save them money. (For the sorting, it probably won't make any difference either way.)
"It doesn't make sense for them to be developing two of everything, one good, one not as good--two calendars, two address books--it's got to merge somehow."
It doesn't make sense for Ford to be making both cars and trucks. It means they have to have at least two separate lines for most of the components. They should just merge the two concepts.
According to the link, the Sierra Club just wants the thing moved to an alternate site. You're making it sound like they're trying to shut down all solar development, period.
Any big industrial project will have consequences for the environment. Just because it's 'green technology', are we supposed to ignore those consequences?
I followed your links, and I'm seeing stories about some billionaire asshole who doesn't want power lines going through his personal 100,000 acre backyard. The GP was claiming that environmentalists were holding back solar farms, and I'm still waiting to see any evidence to back up this claim.
More like: 3. Watch all the development activity move to China, and to other countries that don't give a fuck about keeping the record companies happy.
OK, you're right, the timeframe would have made a big difference. I actually looked in several of the linked items, and I couldn't find any solid info besides the '3 billion' figure.
I don't know - maybe they made the right choice? If the verdict is unenforceable (and it looks like it is) then defending the case would have been a waste of money.
Maybe some lawyer can answer this: if a case is won by default, can that establish a legal precedent?
Except in this case, we're not talking about a company that got 'wrongly' flagged as spammers. These whorehoppers sued over 3 billion blocked emails. That's several times higher than the number of humans with internet access. Can you think of any legitimate reason for sending out that many emails?
I'm still annoyed at "blog". But "blog" and "website" describe things for which there is no other word, so I'd say they're valid. Twitter, on the other hand, is just a blog with a ridiculously small size limit, so there's no good reason to make up a new verb for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Most food is not local, not even close. Take a look at the small print when you're at the supermarket; around here (central NY state) most of it, especially during the winter and spring, comes from places like California, Florida, Mexico, Argentina, even China. Bread is one of the few exceptions (and the wheat isn't grown locally, either).
You're repeating a popular myth. It's entirely possible for dumb people to get rich.
Well, the king in the story doesn't seem very bright in the first place. Maybe this just didn't occur to him.
To date, solar simply isn't cost effective without subsidies, artificial inflation of other energy sources and the threat of other technology being regulated out of the markets.
Well... yeah. If you ignore the externalities (like pollution, or dependence on foreign oil), then solar is not cost effective (and neither is wind or biodiesel or any other renewable source). That's the whole point of subsidies and the other stuff you mention; the free market doesn't account for externalities, that's why they're externalities.
If you bank all your money on solar power,
Who said anything about "all" the money? I think a diversified approach would work best.
I also think that a carbon tax would be a much better solution than subsidies for particular technologies, since it would encourage people to use the most effective emission-reducing measures, rather than the ones that happen to be in vogue with the regulators. But it doesn't look like we'll get that anytime soon.
You are right, of course. Solar power is not cost effective. Government subsidies for green tech distort the market, and are unsustainable. The only sane thing to do is wait for Ayn Rand to descend from the heavens and tell us what to do (I obviously can't predict what that will be, but I bet it'll involve income tax cuts for the upper brackets). And none of that matters anyway, because there's no such thing as global warming.
On most days, the average mail carrier is capable of carrying much more mail. They have to walk the entire route every day, even if they're carrying only a fraction of their maximum capacity; so the capacity is not the limiting factor. So I can see how eliminating one delivery day can save them money. (For the sorting, it probably won't make any difference either way.)
And pay a 30% on top of that for the logo that adorns their shiny new chains.
If you want those in black, that's an additional $150.
"It doesn't make sense for them to be developing two of everything, one good, one not as good--two calendars, two address books--it's got to merge somehow."
It doesn't make sense for Ford to be making both cars and trucks. It means they have to have at least two separate lines for most of the components. They should just merge the two concepts.
According to the link, the Sierra Club just wants the thing moved to an alternate site. You're making it sound like they're trying to shut down all solar development, period.
Any big industrial project will have consequences for the environment. Just because it's 'green technology', are we supposed to ignore those consequences?
I followed your links, and I'm seeing stories about some billionaire asshole who doesn't want power lines going through his personal 100,000 acre backyard. The GP was claiming that environmentalists were holding back solar farms, and I'm still waiting to see any evidence to back up this claim.
Source?
I once met a guy who made sculptures out of those things. I don't know what he uses for materials now.
With any luck they'll go after Twitter next.
The sense I get is that half the list is stuff you'd almost have to be stupid to run into (seriously, who doesn't use Unicode?)
In this day and age, I can't imagine any halfway-serious system that doesn't support Unicode
Who the hell has numbers in there name?
John Paul 2.0
3. Watch project die swiftly and efficiently.
More like: 3. Watch all the development activity move to China, and to other countries that don't give a fuck about keeping the record companies happy.
Even if both guns work exactly the same?
OK, you're right, the timeframe would have made a big difference. I actually looked in several of the linked items, and I couldn't find any solid info besides the '3 billion' figure.
I don't know - maybe they made the right choice? If the verdict is unenforceable (and it looks like it is) then defending the case would have been a waste of money.
Maybe some lawyer can answer this: if a case is won by default, can that establish a legal precedent?
Except in this case, we're not talking about a company that got 'wrongly' flagged as spammers. These whorehoppers sued over 3 billion blocked emails. That's several times higher than the number of humans with internet access. Can you think of any legitimate reason for sending out that many emails?
The end of the prop skateboard video - is that behind Arsenal Mall?
US English has a few unofficial standards bodies, and the NY Times is one of them.
Heck, I'm still annoyed at "website".
I'm still annoyed at "blog". But "blog" and "website" describe things for which there is no other word, so I'd say they're valid. Twitter, on the other hand, is just a blog with a ridiculously small size limit, so there's no good reason to make up a new verb for it.
No, there's a big difference. If he was a current government official, then the statement would represent a government policy.
Clarke is not on the "White House team". He retired a few years ago. Come on, people, would it hurt you to at least read the summary?