WOW. Did you ever actually spend money there or just use them as some sort of welfare service?
Don't pretend that Borders had no interest in having people sitting around the store looking studious. They furnished the place with comfy chairs and didn't hassle people hanging out reading books. I'd say they made a calculated decision. If they wanted you to buy your book and get out, then the store would have looked like a mall bookstore -- most of which seem to have disappeared during Borders' rise.
Your complaint, . . . your odd notion of what is and what isn't "gouging" and everything else about the tone of your comment suggests that you need to get out more and meet more people . . . And it wouldn't hurt for you to spend some time running a retail store, so that your sense of "overpriced on everything" can get connected back to the reality of what it costs to rent, insure, maintain, staff, and market a walk-up book store . ..
But this isn't the customer's responsibility. What price to ask, where to locate a store, negotiation of a lease, finding insurance and all that is the seller's problem. The buyer's problem is to find a product at a price he's willing to pay given that he also has to pay rent, buy food and gas, keep up a wardrobe suitable for his job, etc. And those things are likewise not the seller's problem.
If the buyer and seller can find a price that both can live with, then we've got a commercial transaction. The seller isn't a charity, the buyer doesn't need to concern himself with its profitability. They buyer isn't a charity, the seller doesn't need to feel sorry for him and give him a book for free. They're both in it to get the best deal they can for themselves.
You call the phone company and demand they block all third party charges. They will hem and haw about how your life will suck without them. also with that block all fee phone number exchanges... yes they can do that as well. I got further and block all international calling as well. If I want to talk to Gunther in Germany, I'll use Skype or a calling card that is massively cheaper.
Honestly they need to default to all this crap being blocked and you have to call to enable it.
You call the phone company and demand they block all third party charges. They will hem and haw about how your life will suck without them. also with that block all fee phone number exchanges... yes they can do that as well. I got further and block all international calling as well.
What he said.
To which I would add: tell your phone company that you won't pay any bogus 3rd party charges currently (or ever appearing) on the bill. You're happy to pay their part, but the check won't include the stuff that was crammed on. They'll threaten you that your phone could get cut off, but they won't really do it. Why would they give up $50 bucks a month just to collect 3 dollars for some other guy?
I worked for a while with a 3rd party collect call operator. The company had billing agreements with lots of local carriers. But when push came to shove, the carriers would tell us to go do our own dirty work collecting from the unwilling. They wouldn't go the mat for us even for legitimate charges that the customer disputed. [Don't worry, all you contracts-are-sacred guys, our little company was free to send its own bill in that case -- having the telco collect it was just a convenience, not the exclusive means of collecting the debt.]
NB The above technique won't work if it's the telco itself that crammed the charges on -- or if they've got a big enough stake in it. If it's their money the will come after it.
Short version, she got her knickers in a twist and threw a hissy-fit without even a modest attempt at politely refusing.
How do you 'politely refuse' someone who's demanding to grope your children?
Pretty much the same way you "politely refuse" someone offering to commit any other crime against you or your family. "I think I'll just take a pass on this mugging, sir. I wouldn't want to be arrested for disorderly conduct, you know."
Yeah this is Afghanistan, the commander was power-tripping, and western police as a whole are 100x better behaved,
Sometimes.
Try again in the us as a non-white, or not an obvious "dad trying to educate his kids", let us know how it goes, assuming they don't shoot you.
Actually, even if you take a handful of suburbanite friends out into the country and set up a decent-sized tripod mounted telescope pointed skyward and wait, pretty soon the cops will be by demanding what the hell you think you're doing. Even though it should be pretty damn obvious from the equipment and star charts and red-lens fashlights what the hell you're doing. I can only imagine how much worse it would be if the astronomers were non-white.
Does this mean that the number of car accidents has increased by 25? If not, what improvements have cancelled out the increase in accidents caused by cellphones and other gadgets? Are there fewer accidents caused by people fiddling for CDs in the glove compartment or trying to find a good AM channel? Are there fewer accidents caused by frustrated people trying to find their way on a fold-out map?
Hi, it's my first day here, so I read TFA and TFP. The paper addresses these issues:
Wilson and Stimpson (2010) compared trends in distracted driving fatalities
recorded in FARS with trends in cell phone subscriptions and text message
volume. They observed that distracted driving fatalities and text messaging
both increased substantially from 2005 to 2008. Their multivariate regression
analysis estimated that increased texting since 2001 produced over 16,000
additional traffic fatalities.
Fowles et al. (2010) studied the effects of cell phones on fatality rates from
a “classical econometric” and quite technical point of view. They considered
the effects of broad social and economic variables such as beer consumption,
proportion of young males, seat belt laws, and the number of cell phone
subscribers on annual fatality rates from 1980 to 2004. They concluded that
fatality rates increased as cell phones first began to be used, then decreased
as cell phone use rose, and finally increased again more recently. They
attributed the positive effect of cell phones in the middle period to their use
to call for emergency assistance at a crash. Now that cell phones are almost
universal, their negative effects in distracting drivers overcome these positive
effects. “The bottom line is that cell phones now have an adverse effect on
motor vehicle fatality rates.”
B) do not even an attempt is made to distinguish which class of accidents these are. Does it cause more little heavy traffic bumps and scratches? Or does it account for many major accidents? Plan to tell us? not today clearly.
Actually, yes. From TFP:
NHTSA estimates that 16% of fatal crashes and 20% of injury
crashes in 2009 involved at least one distracted driver (NHTSA, 2010a).
From a another study quoted in the paper:
Farmer et al. (2010) combined the fourfold increase in crash risk while
using a cell phone from the McEvoy et al. and Redelmeier and Tibshirani
studies with the 7% cell phone use rate while driving obtained in a
telephone survey to conclude that cell phone use caused 1.3 million
crashes in 2008, or about 22% of all crashes, 19% of all fatal crashes,
and 23% of all injury crashes. The National Safety Council (NSC) (2010a,
2010b) used similar methods to produce a similar estimate: 25% of all
crashes are caused by cell phones.
And as to the question (in a nearby thread) of additional accidents due to distraction by gadgets . ..
Wilson and Stimpson (2010) compared trends in distracted driving fatalities
recorded in FARS with trends in cell phone subscriptions and text message
volume. They observed that distracted driving fatalities and text messaging
both increased substantially from 2005 to 2008. Their multivariate regression
analysis estimated that increased texting since 2001 produced over 16,000
additional traffic fatalities.
Why not have sexual activity with other people as long as both parties are happy with it and are honest about it? If they are not, then that is probably as a result of social memes not because of honesty and trust.
Emphasis mine.
Dude, this is exactly what everyone is trying to tell you. If two people choose to have a monogamous relationship -- and there are a lot of people who do regardless of their religion or lack thereof -- then they won't be happy about a breach of monogamy even if the partner is honest about it. The fact that some peoples' religions teach monogamy is unimportant. They don't have to base their decision on a religious teaching if they don't want to. They can just agree to the rules of the relationship, can't they? Trusting a partner to abide by the sexual boundaries -- or any other boundaries -- is all about trust.
And the emphasis is on "Sexual Activity" here is because that's what the article is about. If it were an article about selling other peoples' stuff on eBay, then we'd perhaps be talking about trusting spouses not to fence our belongings. And it wouldn't be simply because many religions forbid stealing.
And anyway, my point, and I do have one, is: if I don't want to tell the world about my sex life, I don't need to justify that to anybody. If I don't want my exercise meter uploading that, then I just don't. You can tell me all day long that it's perfectly natural, etc., etc. Fine. It's natural, OK? OK? I said it, sex is natural. But it's also perfectly natural to choose to divulge what I wish to divulge and not divulge what I don't wish.
Closer to making 20 invites at your local Copy Shop and accidentally leaving the master on the machine when some stranger stumbles upon it takes it and makes 100,000 copies.
Even better, a copy machine that makes 20 invite copies for you, then another 100,000 copies that it gives out one-by-one to all subsequent customers. Unless, of course, you knew that you now needed to turn off that particular copy machine "give-everybody-a-copy" feature.
They love that.. They all have the best senses of humour.
BTW: Try calling them "Bitches" They love that too.
Or try telling then that You pay their salary. They are always happy to meet a taxpayer.
Aha, but if you do, they might perform extra-invasive tests and searches on you as punishment. However, the supervisors don't like it when they use procedures in a punitive manner, since that kinda confirms that the procedures are, in fact, punitive. It sort of spoils the whole charade if they admit it's all just to cow us and piss us off.
So you tell the TSA supervisor that you were subject to extra harassment as a retribution for calling the agents a name, etc. Peon gets a stern talking to by unhappy supervisor.
I wish I were a bigger person and didn't feel the need to vent on the lowest people on the org chart. But I'm not. I've written my congressmen and letters to the editor. It doesn't work. So "Plan B" it is.
Collect botnet creators. Apply one bullet to head. In public.
If you could "collect" the botnet creators, then you could solve the problem in any number of less messy ways, though. Even in a jurisdiction that placed serious limitations on violent public executions, if you arrested the creators you've made pretty major progress toward dismantling it.
Remember: there's nothing magical about ad hoc public capital punishment. (Did I just say there's no silver bullet?) Organized crime exists in countries of all judicial philosophies.
So, by all means, capture the miscreants. Or worm your way into their organization. Or whatever. If the botnet is technically impregnable, do what the criminals would do to gain access: social engineering, carrot and stick, threats, bait, plea bargains -- that sort of thing.
Are you saying that "known" USB sticks are better? I find it far more likely that an attacker would infect a known USB stick of a targeted employee... or the USB stick would be mailed to them as "Vendor bling" It would be relatively easy to get several dozen USB sticks with "Cisco" or "Microsoft" printed on them, mail to random people with a note that says "thanks for using our products" and I'm sure 90%+ of them would get plugged strait in and considered "safe".
Indeed. If one wouldn't put a "found" USB drive in their computer, why would you trust a "bought" one? I can imagine quite a number of scenaria where the stick could be infected between manufacture and retail sale. It would be a little harder than just dropping it or even mailing out a freebie like you suggested, but your users would be even less cautious. You could even insert the malware at the corporate level, not that that would happen.
Or how about a keyboard, mouse, hub, printer, mp3 player, etc. with drivers included in a mass storage volume right inside the device? Can you really afford to plug in any USB device?
I found the kill-a-watt, and used it with the fridge for the last 18 hours: 2.44kWh for 18.72h. So 130W is the average for the unit. It's not brand new -- 15 years old -- but that's not ancient for a durable good, either. It is a lot bigger than the 21 cubic feet the NYT article uses as a reference. And it's not in an ideal spot for energy efficiency.
Perhaps my next one will be better, but I'm not in the market for that till we move or this one dies.
At any rate, a 25W cable set top box doesn't seem so bad in comparison.
Not that it really matters in my case. I don't have and still don't want a set-top. To have to use an external tuner for my TV bugs me -- something that goes back to the days of my parents' cable descrambler box of 25 years ago. So I just make do with the rather limited channel selection that piggybacks on my "internet-only" cable plan. As long as my wife can see her stories, the TV does its job.
No need for your Kill-A-Watt. The GP is way off. A fridge that uses 50kWh in a month (that is a very big one, or a very old one) averages at approximately 70W.
My problem isn't lack of arithmetic -- I just don't know how much power my fridge uses either instantaneously or per month. 70 watts still beats the 25W that a STP box is supposedly using -- and which is supposedly bigger than the a fridge's usage.
Therefore all we could say is that an old, big fridge actually uses more than the set-top. But that doesn't get us that much closer to saying the article's claim that they use more than a (presumably modern, 21 cubic foot) refrigerator is right or wrong. Which is what I'm looking for. I wasn't looking to prove or disprove MichaelSmith's numbers.
So I'm right back to where I started, and still looking for that damn kill-a-watt.
My fridge uses 140 watts when drawing power. Maybe 100 watts over the course of a day, and its pretty efficient.
If I read that right, it suggests that your fridge is "running" about 70% of the time. I think mine has a much shorter duty cycle, but I guess I need to plug it in through the "Kill-A-Watt" to find out.
In other words, he never had any intention of staying with the company. He was only there for the minimum amount of time necessary for some options to vest, then he planned to cash in any windfall and move on to the next startup.
Sorry, but I have no sympathy for him.
You know what, if you want me to work somewhere for at least 3 years, why don't you just make the minimum vesting time 3 years? Be it at Skype, Chotchkie's or wherever.
Slashdot Mirror
WOW. Did you ever actually spend money there or just use them as some sort of welfare service?
Don't pretend that Borders had no interest in having people sitting around the store looking studious. They furnished the place with comfy chairs and didn't hassle people hanging out reading books. I'd say they made a calculated decision. If they wanted you to buy your book and get out, then the store would have looked like a mall bookstore -- most of which seem to have disappeared during Borders' rise.
The 40-year-old book seller could start shuttering its 399 remaining stores as early as Friday
Seriously, what's with the recent rise in usage of the word 'shuttering'. I mean, I'm gay and all.. but I'm not THAT gay to use the word shuttering.
In a bad economy, it's only natural that the supply of synonyms for "closing" would be getting low.
Your complaint, . . . your odd notion of what is and what isn't "gouging" and everything else about the tone of your comment suggests that you need to get out more and meet more people . . . And it wouldn't hurt for you to spend some time running a retail store, so that your sense of "overpriced on everything" can get connected back to the reality of what it costs to rent, insure, maintain, staff, and market a walk-up book store . . .
But this isn't the customer's responsibility. What price to ask, where to locate a store, negotiation of a lease, finding insurance and all that is the seller's problem. The buyer's problem is to find a product at a price he's willing to pay given that he also has to pay rent, buy food and gas, keep up a wardrobe suitable for his job, etc. And those things are likewise not the seller's problem.
If the buyer and seller can find a price that both can live with, then we've got a commercial transaction. The seller isn't a charity, the buyer doesn't need to concern himself with its profitability. They buyer isn't a charity, the seller doesn't need to feel sorry for him and give him a book for free. They're both in it to get the best deal they can for themselves.
You call the phone company and demand they block all third party charges. They will hem and haw about how your life will suck without them. also with that block all fee phone number exchanges... yes they can do that as well. I got further and block all international calling as well. If I want to talk to Gunther in Germany, I'll use Skype or a calling card that is massively cheaper.
Honestly they need to default to all this crap being blocked and you have to call to enable it.
You call the phone company and demand they block all third party charges. They will hem and haw about how your life will suck without them. also with that block all fee phone number exchanges... yes they can do that as well. I got further and block all international calling as well.
What he said.
To which I would add: tell your phone company that you won't pay any bogus 3rd party charges currently (or ever appearing) on the bill. You're happy to pay their part, but the check won't include the stuff that was crammed on. They'll threaten you that your phone could get cut off, but they won't really do it. Why would they give up $50 bucks a month just to collect 3 dollars for some other guy?
I worked for a while with a 3rd party collect call operator. The company had billing agreements with lots of local carriers. But when push came to shove, the carriers would tell us to go do our own dirty work collecting from the unwilling. They wouldn't go the mat for us even for legitimate charges that the customer disputed. [Don't worry, all you contracts-are-sacred guys, our little company was free to send its own bill in that case -- having the telco collect it was just a convenience, not the exclusive means of collecting the debt.]
NB The above technique won't work if it's the telco itself that crammed the charges on -- or if they've got a big enough stake in it. If it's their money the will come after it.
Short version, she got her knickers in a twist and threw a hissy-fit without even a modest attempt at politely refusing.
How do you 'politely refuse' someone who's demanding to grope your children?
Pretty much the same way you "politely refuse" someone offering to commit any other crime against you or your family. "I think I'll just take a pass on this mugging, sir. I wouldn't want to be arrested for disorderly conduct, you know."
Er, a sonogram is ultrasound and doesn't use radio waves at all.
I, er, don't think he meant "radio pressure waves". But, er, I suppose you did.
She wasn't arrested for a refusing a patdown. She was arrested for being belligerent.
And in an unrelated Slashdot story, it's the 40th Anniversary of the Stanford Experiment.
Or, could be that she's a self-entitled prat.
I think the old word for that was "citizen".
I also had to google "prat", you prat.
Yeah this is Afghanistan, the commander was power-tripping, and western police as a whole are 100x better behaved,
Sometimes.
Try again in the us as a non-white, or not an obvious "dad trying to educate his kids", let us know how it goes, assuming they don't shoot you.
Actually, even if you take a handful of suburbanite friends out into the country and set up a decent-sized tripod mounted telescope pointed skyward and wait, pretty soon the cops will be by demanding what the hell you think you're doing. Even though it should be pretty damn obvious from the equipment and star charts and red-lens fashlights what the hell you're doing. I can only imagine how much worse it would be if the astronomers were non-white.
Yes but... that is "justice" for you. He committed the worst, most heinous crime in our court system... he refused the plea deal.
This is the "Confession is good for the soul" philosophy. Like in the Witch Trials.
I know that if you are the sole possessor of, e.g., a discontinued book, you become the copyright holder of that work.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter
Does this mean that the number of car accidents has increased by 25? If not, what improvements have cancelled out the increase in accidents caused by cellphones and other gadgets? Are there fewer accidents caused by people fiddling for CDs in the glove compartment or trying to find a good AM channel? Are there fewer accidents caused by frustrated people trying to find their way on a fold-out map?
Hi, it's my first day here, so I read TFA and TFP. The paper addresses these issues:
Wilson and Stimpson (2010) compared trends in distracted driving fatalities recorded in FARS with trends in cell phone subscriptions and text message volume. They observed that distracted driving fatalities and text messaging both increased substantially from 2005 to 2008. Their multivariate regression analysis estimated that increased texting since 2001 produced over 16,000 additional traffic fatalities.
Fowles et al. (2010) studied the effects of cell phones on fatality rates from a “classical econometric” and quite technical point of view. They considered the effects of broad social and economic variables such as beer consumption, proportion of young males, seat belt laws, and the number of cell phone subscribers on annual fatality rates from 1980 to 2004. They concluded that fatality rates increased as cell phones first began to be used, then decreased as cell phone use rose, and finally increased again more recently. They attributed the positive effect of cell phones in the middle period to their use to call for emergency assistance at a crash. Now that cell phones are almost universal, their negative effects in distracting drivers overcome these positive effects. “The bottom line is that cell phones now have an adverse effect on motor vehicle fatality rates.”
How the highway safety folks....
B) do not even an attempt is made to distinguish which class of accidents these are. Does it cause more little heavy traffic bumps and scratches? Or does it account for many major accidents? Plan to tell us? not today clearly.
Actually, yes. From TFP:
NHTSA estimates that 16% of fatal crashes and 20% of injury crashes in 2009 involved at least one distracted driver (NHTSA, 2010a).
From a another study quoted in the paper:
Farmer et al. (2010) combined the fourfold increase in crash risk while using a cell phone from the McEvoy et al. and Redelmeier and Tibshirani studies with the 7% cell phone use rate while driving obtained in a telephone survey to conclude that cell phone use caused 1.3 million crashes in 2008, or about 22% of all crashes, 19% of all fatal crashes, and 23% of all injury crashes. The National Safety Council (NSC) (2010a, 2010b) used similar methods to produce a similar estimate: 25% of all crashes are caused by cell phones.
And as to the question (in a nearby thread) of additional accidents due to distraction by gadgets . . .
Wilson and Stimpson (2010) compared trends in distracted driving fatalities recorded in FARS with trends in cell phone subscriptions and text message volume. They observed that distracted driving fatalities and text messaging both increased substantially from 2005 to 2008. Their multivariate regression analysis estimated that increased texting since 2001 produced over 16,000 additional traffic fatalities.
Why not have sexual activity with other people as long as both parties are happy with it and are honest about it? If they are not, then that is probably as a result of social memes not because of honesty and trust.
Emphasis mine.
Dude, this is exactly what everyone is trying to tell you. If two people choose to have a monogamous relationship -- and there are a lot of people who do regardless of their religion or lack thereof -- then they won't be happy about a breach of monogamy even if the partner is honest about it. The fact that some peoples' religions teach monogamy is unimportant. They don't have to base their decision on a religious teaching if they don't want to. They can just agree to the rules of the relationship, can't they? Trusting a partner to abide by the sexual boundaries -- or any other boundaries -- is all about trust.
And the emphasis is on "Sexual Activity" here is because that's what the article is about. If it were an article about selling other peoples' stuff on eBay, then we'd perhaps be talking about trusting spouses not to fence our belongings. And it wouldn't be simply because many religions forbid stealing.
And anyway, my point, and I do have one, is: if I don't want to tell the world about my sex life, I don't need to justify that to anybody. If I don't want my exercise meter uploading that, then I just don't. You can tell me all day long that it's perfectly natural, etc., etc. Fine. It's natural, OK? OK? I said it, sex is natural. But it's also perfectly natural to choose to divulge what I wish to divulge and not divulge what I don't wish.
Closer to making 20 invites at your local Copy Shop and accidentally leaving the master on the machine when some stranger stumbles upon it takes it and makes 100,000 copies.
Even better, a copy machine that makes 20 invite copies for you, then another 100,000 copies that it gives out one-by-one to all subsequent customers. Unless, of course, you knew that you now needed to turn off that particular copy machine "give-everybody-a-copy" feature.
They love that.. They all have the best senses of humour. BTW: Try calling them "Bitches" They love that too. Or try telling then that You pay their salary. They are always happy to meet a taxpayer.
Aha, but if you do, they might perform extra-invasive tests and searches on you as punishment. However, the supervisors don't like it when they use procedures in a punitive manner, since that kinda confirms that the procedures are, in fact, punitive. It sort of spoils the whole charade if they admit it's all just to cow us and piss us off.
So you tell the TSA supervisor that you were subject to extra harassment as a retribution for calling the agents a name, etc. Peon gets a stern talking to by unhappy supervisor.
I wish I were a bigger person and didn't feel the need to vent on the lowest people on the org chart. But I'm not. I've written my congressmen and letters to the editor. It doesn't work. So "Plan B" it is.
At first I thought they were talking about left/right tilting for fast cornering... Now THAT would be hard to replicate on a stationary bike.
I thought it would involve lances or something, and was similarly disappointed.
Collect botnet creators. Apply one bullet to head. In public.
If you could "collect" the botnet creators, then you could solve the problem in any number of less messy ways, though. Even in a jurisdiction that placed serious limitations on violent public executions, if you arrested the creators you've made pretty major progress toward dismantling it.
Remember: there's nothing magical about ad hoc public capital punishment. (Did I just say there's no silver bullet?) Organized crime exists in countries of all judicial philosophies.
So, by all means, capture the miscreants. Or worm your way into their organization. Or whatever. If the botnet is technically impregnable, do what the criminals would do to gain access: social engineering, carrot and stick, threats, bait, plea bargains -- that sort of thing.
Are you saying that "known" USB sticks are better? I find it far more likely that an attacker would infect a known USB stick of a targeted employee... or the USB stick would be mailed to them as "Vendor bling" It would be relatively easy to get several dozen USB sticks with "Cisco" or "Microsoft" printed on them, mail to random people with a note that says "thanks for using our products" and I'm sure 90%+ of them would get plugged strait in and considered "safe".
Indeed. If one wouldn't put a "found" USB drive in their computer, why would you trust a "bought" one? I can imagine quite a number of scenaria where the stick could be infected between manufacture and retail sale. It would be a little harder than just dropping it or even mailing out a freebie like you suggested, but your users would be even less cautious. You could even insert the malware at the corporate level, not that that would happen.
Or how about a keyboard, mouse, hub, printer, mp3 player, etc. with drivers included in a mass storage volume right inside the device? Can you really afford to plug in any USB device?
You mean like helping someone with a flat on the side of the road only to be robbed?
I heard that story somewhere before . . .
I found the kill-a-watt, and used it with the fridge for the last 18 hours: 2.44kWh for 18.72h. So 130W is the average for the unit. It's not brand new -- 15 years old -- but that's not ancient for a durable good, either. It is a lot bigger than the 21 cubic feet the NYT article uses as a reference. And it's not in an ideal spot for energy efficiency.
Perhaps my next one will be better, but I'm not in the market for that till we move or this one dies.
At any rate, a 25W cable set top box doesn't seem so bad in comparison.
Not that it really matters in my case. I don't have and still don't want a set-top. To have to use an external tuner for my TV bugs me -- something that goes back to the days of my parents' cable descrambler box of 25 years ago. So I just make do with the rather limited channel selection that piggybacks on my "internet-only" cable plan. As long as my wife can see her stories, the TV does its job.
No need for your Kill-A-Watt. The GP is way off. A fridge that uses 50kWh in a month (that is a very big one, or a very old one) averages at approximately 70W.
My problem isn't lack of arithmetic -- I just don't know how much power my fridge uses either instantaneously or per month. 70 watts still beats the 25W that a STP box is supposedly using -- and which is supposedly bigger than the a fridge's usage.
Therefore all we could say is that an old, big fridge actually uses more than the set-top. But that doesn't get us that much closer to saying the article's claim that they use more than a (presumably modern, 21 cubic foot) refrigerator is right or wrong. Which is what I'm looking for. I wasn't looking to prove or disprove MichaelSmith's numbers.
So I'm right back to where I started, and still looking for that damn kill-a-watt.
My fridge uses 140 watts when drawing power. Maybe 100 watts over the course of a day, and its pretty efficient.
If I read that right, it suggests that your fridge is "running" about 70% of the time. I think mine has a much shorter duty cycle, but I guess I need to plug it in through the "Kill-A-Watt" to find out.
Are the only two things I would work for on top of salary.
Stocks are worthless.
-Hack
Even then, you might want to get those up front, or at least as you go.
In other words, he never had any intention of staying with the company. He was only there for the minimum amount of time necessary for some options to vest, then he planned to cash in any windfall and move on to the next startup. Sorry, but I have no sympathy for him.
You know what, if you want me to work somewhere for at least 3 years, why don't you just make the minimum vesting time 3 years? Be it at Skype, Chotchkie's or wherever.