Well funded fossil fuel interests who use loud mouthed environmentalists as a reason for their muddle-headed politicians to respond to the environmentalists by acting in the fossil fuel industry's favor
Coal comes up about 1/4 to 1/2 the cost of gas turbine
This is using LCOE, which takes into account the entire lifecycle of the fuel source
The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is a measure of a power source which attempts to compare different methods of electricity generation on a comparable basis. It is an economic assessment of the average total cost to build and operate a power-generating asset over its lifetime divided by the total power output of the asset over that lifetime. The LCOE can also be regarded as the cost at which electricity must be generated in order to break-even over the lifetime of the project.
One of the sure signs of an idiot is an easily repeatable phrase
The primary reasons that Nuclear is expensive is the constant lawsuits and attempts to derail efforts to implement it
And even after all of those efforts, the only reason that Nuclear is more expensive than Coal (the only competitive power generation, solar is waaaay off the mark) is because Coal does not have to contain the waste that it spews from its smokestacks, which contains mercury, uranium and enough CO2 to cook a planet
It is painful that the idiots who carry around signs like "you can't hug a child with nuclear arms" and want to save the planet from nuclear power are the same idiots who are forcing industry to use Coal power
A Business manager should be able to recognize their own company's Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)
If they think that having customers notify them when they identify a Weakness in their product then they are missing out on an Opportunity to identify a Threat, or three of the four things that they should be doing, definitely not a Strength that will keep them in their position
Sticking her head in the sand, so to speak, prevents her from getting her own product experts involved, improving their product, allaying the fears of their customers and holding both their competitors and the 'bad guys' at bay.
Imagine a world where people see something, derive value from it and then add to it in order to provide more value.
Yes, what a desolate wasteland that would be with people improving things and then spreading those improvements around for other people to use... It would be a shame that anybody would imagine such a thing
Even better would be to take some idea, claim ownership over it and then attack anybody who would attempt to re-apply or extend that idea into something more useful
Thank you AC, you have just demonstrated why closed source patent trolls are superior to open source idea sharers, thanks for educating us all with your brilliance
Not so sure about that, it could become like Berkshire Hathaway where a single company controls multiple companies, each with their own publicly traded stock
It is a sad joke when it actually represents how formulaic business management has become Blame predecessor and cronies Build wall of well-paid sycophants Receive bonus Blame organization Reorganize Receive bonus Blame employees Outsource Receive bonus . . . Rinse and Repeat at next company
Google can show a profit or their shareholders, while Google Alphabet can show a loss so that the majority share holders in that company can reduce their tax bill, at least until they sell their shares
I have been down that same pipe with leaders who come from HR and Accounting They attend conferences where vendors show them all sorts of glittery toys and then get mad at the IT types who identify to them how the software that they own will not deliver all of the features that they were demoed.
Of course it is IT's fault in their minds and they go about yanking all authority away from IT because they figure that they can do it better themselves
In the case of the Oracle eBusiness Suite, you might get some chuckles if you tell people that you are going to run it on SQLServer, but it simply is not going to happen. Oracle eBS runs on Oracle database, and that is pretty much locked up
The thing is that it is not a Oracle == SQLServer, or Oracle == PostgresSQL equation
Oracle has expanded their offerings through acquisitions to sit on top of licensing for everything from operating systems, to middle ware, to user applications, all of which are well beyond the range of any competing database.
Not to mention that Oracle sales reps make zero attempt to lower the long term licensing costs when closing a deal. Your only real chance to modify your licensing agreements are during a true-up exercise, and very few people have the competency to understand and negotiate decent contracts.
A trigger on a busy table was using a Rule Based Optimizer We had done a 'rough' system test for upgrading from 9i to 10g, but the system did not have a realistic production load put on it The DBA group placed the upgrade into production and suddenly the system drags to a crawl It took us a very short amount of time to figure out the problem, but a few hours to deal with the existing change control process and satisfying a DBA manager, who failed to let us know that there was a major change with the database release, that dropping the hint entirely (he had been on the team that introduced it years earlier) would be the best way to go since the new Cost Based Optimizer would recognize the query and make adjustments for it.
Taco, I understand you come from a different angle on this whole 'merica thing. For a large portion of the population, for the years from say 1950 until the late 1980's it was totally normal to get a job out of high school, to join a union associate with that job and to work that job until retirement, with a decent pension. This was not unusual for white collar (professional, non-union) positions either.
Just how common this was started to trend downward through the 1990's, both in the union trades (which were decimated as legacy companies failed to keep up with quality and production) and in white collar positions as eager workers from overseas (familiar?) hit the job market and demonstrated their capabilities and lack of expectation of a life-long position with a pension.
Some upper executives made the mistake of believing that all over-seas applicants where as capable or enthusiastic as the first (and second, third) wave of fresh minds that hit the job market, when in fact they were the upper percent of a percent of their nation's respective bell curves, and started making plans to pitch their local workers under the bus in hopes of bringing on endless droves of freakin braniacs who would have no expectation of wages or benefits that native workers would expect
From my stand-point (my father had the same employer for 40+ years, I have had one employer that I was at for more than a decade, with most lasting less than five years) there are trade-offs between seeking long term employees vs 'contract' work. Long-term employees can benefit a company by providing deep knowledge of the organization and may benefit projects by understanding how thet fit in to the ethos of the culture. They can also be horrible lard-asses who want to ride on the coat-tails of the few employees who want to trailblaze and develop new markets.
Similarly, contract labor, outsourcing companies, etc can provide incredible new opportunities to existing companies and drive them into new markets. They can also become a persistent crutch that cost tons of money and take all of their knowledge with them when they leave, letting the companies wither and die like hollowed husks who have no capability to stand on their own.
In truth, black and white gets us no-where and in order to be successful companies will need to leverage whip-smart contract labor, while building capable internal teams to support their efforts after they have been sent off to their next world-building exercise. Maybe the 'stability' from 1950 to 1980 was the real 'aberration' and the constant changes driven by an influx of new workers is the real American norm
GP said, " Name one country, where the people have moved UP in life, that runs under socialism"
My post accomplished that, simply raising the bar in order to try and prove some other point that the answer was not intended for is just an exercise in public masturbation
Slashdot Mirror
Well funded fossil fuel interests who use loud mouthed environmentalists as a reason for their muddle-headed politicians to respond to the environmentalists by acting in the fossil fuel industry's favor
Let me fix that for you
One of the sure signs of a person with the mentality of a three year old is an easily repeatable phrase
pedantic enough for you
Yes, I live downwind of one of the largest nuclear plants in America
Not a problem for me or three million other people in the same area
I do not know where you are getting those costs, but here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Coal comes up about 1/4 to 1/2 the cost of gas turbine
This is using LCOE, which takes into account the entire lifecycle of the fuel source
The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is a measure of a power source which attempts to compare different methods of electricity generation on a comparable basis. It is an economic assessment of the average total cost to build and operate a power-generating asset over its lifetime divided by the total power output of the asset over that lifetime. The LCOE can also be regarded as the cost at which electricity must be generated in order to break-even over the lifetime of the project.
So, your solution to the energy problem is wiping out 29 out of every thirty people now living?
LOL, maybe you need to learn more about nuclear power
'solar is starting to get below COAL in cost"
cite or GTFO
One of the sure signs of an idiot is an easily repeatable phrase
The primary reasons that Nuclear is expensive is the constant lawsuits and attempts to derail efforts to implement it
And even after all of those efforts, the only reason that Nuclear is more expensive than Coal (the only competitive power generation, solar is waaaay off the mark) is because Coal does not have to contain the waste that it spews from its smokestacks, which contains mercury, uranium and enough CO2 to cook a planet
It is painful that the idiots who carry around signs like "you can't hug a child with nuclear arms" and want to save the planet from nuclear power are the same idiots who are forcing industry to use Coal power
A Business manager should be able to recognize their own company's Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)
If they think that having customers notify them when they identify a Weakness in their product then they are missing out on an Opportunity to identify a Threat, or three of the four things that they should be doing, definitely not a Strength that will keep them in their position
Sticking her head in the sand, so to speak, prevents her from getting her own product experts involved, improving their product, allaying the fears of their customers and holding both their competitors and the 'bad guys' at bay.
Um, yeah...
Imagine a world where people see something, derive value from it and then add to it in order to provide more value.
Yes, what a desolate wasteland that would be with people improving things and then spreading those improvements around for other people to use... It would be a shame that anybody would imagine such a thing
Even better would be to take some idea, claim ownership over it and then attack anybody who would attempt to re-apply or extend that idea into something more useful
Thank you AC, you have just demonstrated why closed source patent trolls are superior to open source idea sharers, thanks for educating us all with your brilliance
How long would you expect it to stay that way before profitable companies get their own IPOs?
Srsly?
Why not? See Berkshire Hathaway reference above where one company holds controlling interest in multiple companies.
Not so sure about that, it could become like Berkshire Hathaway where a single company controls multiple companies, each with their own publicly traded stock
It is a sad joke when it actually represents how formulaic business management has become
Blame predecessor and cronies
Build wall of well-paid sycophants
Receive bonus
Blame organization
Reorganize
Receive bonus
Blame employees
Outsource
Receive bonus
.
.
.
Rinse and Repeat at next company
Google can show a profit or their shareholders, while Google Alphabet can show a loss so that the majority share holders in that company can reduce their tax bill, at least until they sell their shares
may have been getting a little impatient with the many directions that Google was going in.
This allows Google to focus on making money from advertisements, while Alphabet can makes bets on many different products
At least that is my take on it
I have been down that same pipe with leaders who come from HR and Accounting
They attend conferences where vendors show them all sorts of glittery toys and then get mad at the IT types who identify to them how the software that they own will not deliver all of the features that they were demoed.
Of course it is IT's fault in their minds and they go about yanking all authority away from IT because they figure that they can do it better themselves
he said PETERbyte.... hehehehe
In the case of the Oracle eBusiness Suite, you might get some chuckles if you tell people that you are going to run it on SQLServer, but it simply is not going to happen. Oracle eBS runs on Oracle database, and that is pretty much locked up
Yes, I am confused, in my experience 2 million Oracle licenses should cost between $2 and $20 BILLION dollars
WHAT! Are you suggesting that /. readers would leap at a chance to rip into Oracle?
The thing is that it is not a Oracle == SQLServer, or Oracle == PostgresSQL equation
Oracle has expanded their offerings through acquisitions to sit on top of licensing for everything from operating systems, to middle ware, to user applications, all of which are well beyond the range of any competing database.
Not to mention that Oracle sales reps make zero attempt to lower the long term licensing costs when closing a deal. Your only real chance to modify your licensing agreements are during a true-up exercise, and very few people have the competency to understand and negotiate decent contracts.
A trigger on a busy table was using a Rule Based Optimizer
We had done a 'rough' system test for upgrading from 9i to 10g, but the system did not have a realistic production load put on it
The DBA group placed the upgrade into production and suddenly the system drags to a crawl
It took us a very short amount of time to figure out the problem, but a few hours to deal with the existing change control process and satisfying a DBA manager, who failed to let us know that there was a major change with the database release, that dropping the hint entirely (he had been on the team that introduced it years earlier) would be the best way to go since the new Cost Based Optimizer would recognize the query and make adjustments for it.
Taco,
I understand you come from a different angle on this whole 'merica thing.
For a large portion of the population, for the years from say 1950 until the late 1980's it was totally normal to get a job out of high school, to join a union associate with that job and to work that job until retirement, with a decent pension. This was not unusual for white collar (professional, non-union) positions either.
Just how common this was started to trend downward through the 1990's, both in the union trades (which were decimated as legacy companies failed to keep up with quality and production) and in white collar positions as eager workers from overseas (familiar?) hit the job market and demonstrated their capabilities and lack of expectation of a life-long position with a pension.
Some upper executives made the mistake of believing that all over-seas applicants where as capable or enthusiastic as the first (and second, third) wave of fresh minds that hit the job market, when in fact they were the upper percent of a percent of their nation's respective bell curves, and started making plans to pitch their local workers under the bus in hopes of bringing on endless droves of freakin braniacs who would have no expectation of wages or benefits that native workers would expect
From my stand-point (my father had the same employer for 40+ years, I have had one employer that I was at for more than a decade, with most lasting less than five years) there are trade-offs between seeking long term employees vs 'contract' work. Long-term employees can benefit a company by providing deep knowledge of the organization and may benefit projects by understanding how thet fit in to the ethos of the culture. They can also be horrible lard-asses who want to ride on the coat-tails of the few employees who want to trailblaze and develop new markets.
Similarly, contract labor, outsourcing companies, etc can provide incredible new opportunities to existing companies and drive them into new markets. They can also become a persistent crutch that cost tons of money and take all of their knowledge with them when they leave, letting the companies wither and die like hollowed husks who have no capability to stand on their own.
In truth, black and white gets us no-where and in order to be successful companies will need to leverage whip-smart contract labor, while building capable internal teams to support their efforts after they have been sent off to their next world-building exercise. Maybe the 'stability' from 1950 to 1980 was the real 'aberration' and the constant changes driven by an influx of new workers is the real American norm
GP said, " Name one country, where the people have moved UP in life, that runs under socialism"
My post accomplished that, simply raising the bar in order to try and prove some other point that the answer was not intended for is just an exercise in public masturbation
Norway