Ya know, I got my hair cut once, about six months ago, and didn't need another one until recently (perks of work from home...) When I was there, the stylist handed me her card, which I promptly lost. I'd like to have used her again, was a good cut, aged well, but I totally forgot all but the first letter of her name and the purple streak in her hair.
This time, the receptionist hit me up for name and phone number, even though I paid cash. My childhood shopping/training at Radio Shack means that I know what's going down here before she even speaks, but this time, I don't mind, and it's not because of the yoga pants she's wearing... see, this way they put me in their system, and when I call 2, 3, or 6 months from now, I can make a reservation with the same stylist, or different depending on how this cut ages, and I don't have to keep track of anything. If they get obnoxious and pro-actively call me, I can get obnoxious right back and ask them to please not do that again, if they do that again I can ask them to remove my information from their system.
Believe it or not, after a few years of simply asking people to not call and remove your information from their systems, you can quiet down your phone to a tolerable level, I'm getting about one wrong number every 3 months now and no unwanted marketing. And, for the habitually stupid, there's the silent ring option in the contacts info.
That would actually be a great opportunity for nuclear, however I have a feeling that these guys would hate nuclear even more than coal (I know it's stereotyping, but their type usually does and you'd be hard pressed to argue otherwise.)
Careful with your insensitive clod stereotyping, I am a pro-nuclear green wanker and proud of it. I had to cut off my ties to Greenpeace when they wouldn't shut up about the damn nuke power plants being eeeeevil.
Living in Florida, it isn't all that hard. Coal stacks put yellow-brown streaks in an otherwise blue sky - clear evidence of literally tons of sulfur and other nasties being injected into our environment after a train ride down from under the mountains of Appalachia.
The nuke plants, on the other hand, hum quietly and cleanly, and get all excited when the tiniest bit of detectable radiation leaks outside the controlled containment area. This is Florida, we're all going to die of skin cancer, and it's not coming from the local power plants.
They go on to talk about coal's "dark future" and how it's a "dead end industry." Ok, so let it die. There's no need to blow $50B on a "dead end industry."
When I think about the "dark future" of coal, I'm thinking about strip mines that dig into historic towns in Germany (oh, boo hoo, relocate the church and everyone get on with life, right?), or even more ecologically sensitive areas, dig deeper into places they shouldn't and pull up coal with more sulfur and heavy metals than they should. I think of what's going on with the Canadian tar sands for oil, and I think of open pit mines on fire for decades - that's a real boon for Hazelwood, Australia right now, isn't it?
To me, that's the whole problem with massive industry built on non-renewable resources. When the coal is just lying around on the surface of the desert, sure, pick it up and use it. But, that runs out - then we start digging for it in places that don't really matter, but those run out, and then we get a little closer to towns, streams that feed recreational lakes, and other places that you might rather not mine, but, hey, we need the coal, right?
$50B "blown" on technology changeover would be a huge economic boost with "trickledown" effects all the way through the service industries. Sure, you'll get some old codgers who don't know nothin' other than minin' coal, can't lern nothin' else, poor me, send me that check and me an' my Jim Beam will get along somehow... those folks are actually pretty rare. And, some mining towns will dry up, the way that gold and silver mining towns did when they ran out of profit to be dug from the ground. Me, personally, I'm more concerned with the non-carbon stuff that's being burned in the coal, making mercury laced acid rain for all of us. And, don't forget the poor drowning polar bears - CO2 emissions are actually something to be concerned about now, rather than after half of Florida is underwater.
You know who killed Thoruim? That guy in Dr. Strangelove, when he said "Cobalt Thorium G" his vocal delivery of Thooorium made it irredeemably eeevil in the popular psyche.
I knocked around "10 person" class startups for a while, coming in as the "chief software officer" or whatever they wanted to call me, and the position usually rated 0.5% of the current stock pool, vesting over a 3-5 year horizon - this was what they offered as incentive to get/keep me, not what I asked for, though I did have one outfit offer me "shares" verbally, then put "options" on the paper offer - I protested that one, and, incidentally, that one is the only one that has turned into cash for me over time, not much cash, but if those were options instead of shares, it would have been zero.
Now, if you think that 0.5% stays 0.5% after round D investment brings another $20M to the table, you obviously haven't done this before.
Hey, I wore flip flops to work (while wearing the VP hat) and made impromptu presentations to big shot investor types, while still in same flip flops, for years.
We landed a couple of big fish that way, including some that were probably enamored to the fact that the talent didn't waste money, time and effort on selecting ties in the morning.
I'm taking a free MOOC right now, and I'm skipping the labs, so my grade is guaranteed to be 50%, and I don't care - for my purposes, I'm getting 80% of the learning for 20% of the time invested, and when I want to go to lab practice, I'll be doing it on my own schedule.
I've seen many businesses that try to optimize by getting stellar programming talent at graduate teaching assistant prices.
I've seen it work for them, once in awhile, but it's not a reliable game - it represents risk, like any other risk/reward business decision. Risk that you'll never get a star in the door, risk that you won't hang on to them when they realize they can do better elsewhere, risk that your product won't work as well as you need it to to sell it competitively because of the games you're playing in your programmer talent pool.
If you're stuck in one of these businesses that's trying to make their extra bucks by economizing on labor costs, look around, there are plenty of businesses out there that have solid business plans, effective sales forces, and a willingness to pay their talent pool sufficiently to both attract good people and keep them so they can support this cash making machine they've got going. You might not find the right spot on the first try, or the first three tries, but if you're willing to settle in an abusive situation, you're not just a victim, you're part of the problem.
businesses are looking for a specific class of programmers: The low-paid programmers who have enough background to be useful but not enough background to demand a high salary.
If this is what businesses need - then great, let's get more of these people in the workforce.
I work at a different level of programming and industry experience, and I might demand 3x the salary that these guys do - but if we had 3 of these guys for every one of me, I wouldn't be wasting my time doing a lot of simple stuff that doesn't add as much value to the product as I could otherwise - the business as a whole would benefit by getting product to market faster, and they can still afford to pay my salary.
Worried that these 3 guys will work their way up to "your level" and compete your salary down? If you're really adding value at a high level, you shouldn't worry much, most of these guys will not be working their way up - it doesn't mean they're (all) worthless, just that there's a lot of simpler stuff that needs doing, and there always will be. Some of the new people will wash out, not cut out for desk work or whatever, some will muddle along fixing build scripts and addressing bug reports one at a time because that's what they're good at, and a rare few will become the new top architects - but, mostly, the new top architects will not be coming from public library based MOOC study groups, and when they do, they will mostly be "paying their dues" for a decade or two, like the rest of us.
The current monetary has no security beyond the criminal justice system.
Today, anyone who can get a photograph of one of your checks clear enough to read the routing and account numbers can forge a check on your account and deposit the funds to their account, entirely using their cell phone, without ever setting foot inside the territorial U.S.
The article is a summary of a larger proposal. Even in the article, they state that power generation will be transitioned to other fuels / sources, workers retrained, etc.
Even if the larger proposal is less than perfect, it is examining relative costs and benefits of keeping vs. shutting down the coal industry. From their perspective, every dollar spent in closing down the coal industry will be paid back 2-3x in reduced costs like pollution, healthcare, etc. even after accounting for the increased cost of electricity and other items.
TL;DR: coal costs us more to keep than to get rid of.
Remember lead in paint and gasoline? Accurately accounting for the social/economic benefits of the lead phase out is impossible, but overall it is becoming quite clear that the lead phase-out was a win. Same for asbestos, CFCs and PCBs. For me, the jury is still out over removing arsenic from treated wood, but I think I can agree with their forecasting on coal. As for smaller scale uses of coal, those could continue, and yes, prices might rise in the short term, but actually, those industries would benefit in the longer term due to the reduced demand for coal for power, and therefore longer lifetime of the non-renewable resource.
However, the article's author throws around massive and mass as if they are also measuring the mass of the star "50% more massive than heavyweight Betelgeuse" - I don't think the actual astronomers are talking about mass...
Slashdot Mirror
Ya know, I got my hair cut once, about six months ago, and didn't need another one until recently (perks of work from home...) When I was there, the stylist handed me her card, which I promptly lost. I'd like to have used her again, was a good cut, aged well, but I totally forgot all but the first letter of her name and the purple streak in her hair.
This time, the receptionist hit me up for name and phone number, even though I paid cash. My childhood shopping/training at Radio Shack means that I know what's going down here before she even speaks, but this time, I don't mind, and it's not because of the yoga pants she's wearing... see, this way they put me in their system, and when I call 2, 3, or 6 months from now, I can make a reservation with the same stylist, or different depending on how this cut ages, and I don't have to keep track of anything. If they get obnoxious and pro-actively call me, I can get obnoxious right back and ask them to please not do that again, if they do that again I can ask them to remove my information from their system.
Believe it or not, after a few years of simply asking people to not call and remove your information from their systems, you can quiet down your phone to a tolerable level, I'm getting about one wrong number every 3 months now and no unwanted marketing. And, for the habitually stupid, there's the silent ring option in the contacts info.
That would actually be a great opportunity for nuclear, however I have a feeling that these guys would hate nuclear even more than coal (I know it's stereotyping, but their type usually does and you'd be hard pressed to argue otherwise.)
Careful with your insensitive clod stereotyping, I am a pro-nuclear green wanker and proud of it. I had to cut off my ties to Greenpeace when they wouldn't shut up about the damn nuke power plants being eeeeevil.
Living in Florida, it isn't all that hard. Coal stacks put yellow-brown streaks in an otherwise blue sky - clear evidence of literally tons of sulfur and other nasties being injected into our environment after a train ride down from under the mountains of Appalachia.
The nuke plants, on the other hand, hum quietly and cleanly, and get all excited when the tiniest bit of detectable radiation leaks outside the controlled containment area. This is Florida, we're all going to die of skin cancer, and it's not coming from the local power plants.
Coal, oil, and natural gas, mainly. Shut it all down, and we go back to a life primitive, brutish, and short.
Or, we move to France. I know, tough choice, barbarisim or Parisians, but France is what, like 70% nuclear using breeders to make fuel?
Obviously, unhappy developers are spending a fair amount of brain power plotting their revenge on whatever is making them unhappy...
The article is ignorant of how basic economics work.
The AC is ignorant of what was written in the article.
Not really. Limit supply you increase demand.
...
See, you blew it by going on, this is actually a haiku rebuttal thread.
A response more inkeeping with the tone might have been something like:
No, he's not, naa naa na boo boo.
AC started it with a one-line snipe at the article.
There is no finishing this with voluminous text and examples.
They go on to talk about coal's "dark future" and how it's a "dead end industry." Ok, so let it die. There's no need to blow $50B on a "dead end industry."
When I think about the "dark future" of coal, I'm thinking about strip mines that dig into historic towns in Germany (oh, boo hoo, relocate the church and everyone get on with life, right?), or even more ecologically sensitive areas, dig deeper into places they shouldn't and pull up coal with more sulfur and heavy metals than they should. I think of what's going on with the Canadian tar sands for oil, and I think of open pit mines on fire for decades - that's a real boon for Hazelwood, Australia right now, isn't it?
To me, that's the whole problem with massive industry built on non-renewable resources. When the coal is just lying around on the surface of the desert, sure, pick it up and use it. But, that runs out - then we start digging for it in places that don't really matter, but those run out, and then we get a little closer to towns, streams that feed recreational lakes, and other places that you might rather not mine, but, hey, we need the coal, right?
$50B "blown" on technology changeover would be a huge economic boost with "trickledown" effects all the way through the service industries. Sure, you'll get some old codgers who don't know nothin' other than minin' coal, can't lern nothin' else, poor me, send me that check and me an' my Jim Beam will get along somehow... those folks are actually pretty rare. And, some mining towns will dry up, the way that gold and silver mining towns did when they ran out of profit to be dug from the ground. Me, personally, I'm more concerned with the non-carbon stuff that's being burned in the coal, making mercury laced acid rain for all of us. And, don't forget the poor drowning polar bears - CO2 emissions are actually something to be concerned about now, rather than after half of Florida is underwater.
You know who killed Thoruim? That guy in Dr. Strangelove, when he said "Cobalt Thorium G" his vocal delivery of Thooorium made it irredeemably eeevil in the popular psyche.
I knocked around "10 person" class startups for a while, coming in as the "chief software officer" or whatever they wanted to call me, and the position usually rated 0.5% of the current stock pool, vesting over a 3-5 year horizon - this was what they offered as incentive to get/keep me, not what I asked for, though I did have one outfit offer me "shares" verbally, then put "options" on the paper offer - I protested that one, and, incidentally, that one is the only one that has turned into cash for me over time, not much cash, but if those were options instead of shares, it would have been zero.
Now, if you think that 0.5% stays 0.5% after round D investment brings another $20M to the table, you obviously haven't done this before.
Hey, I wore flip flops to work (while wearing the VP hat) and made impromptu presentations to big shot investor types, while still in same flip flops, for years.
We landed a couple of big fish that way, including some that were probably enamored to the fact that the talent didn't waste money, time and effort on selecting ties in the morning.
So, valued at 24 months projected revenue should be more like, 3 months trailing?
You didn't get the pi to show, either.
I'm taking a free MOOC right now, and I'm skipping the labs, so my grade is guaranteed to be 50%, and I don't care - for my purposes, I'm getting 80% of the learning for 20% of the time invested, and when I want to go to lab practice, I'll be doing it on my own schedule.
I've seen many businesses that try to optimize by getting stellar programming talent at graduate teaching assistant prices.
I've seen it work for them, once in awhile, but it's not a reliable game - it represents risk, like any other risk/reward business decision. Risk that you'll never get a star in the door, risk that you won't hang on to them when they realize they can do better elsewhere, risk that your product won't work as well as you need it to to sell it competitively because of the games you're playing in your programmer talent pool.
If you're stuck in one of these businesses that's trying to make their extra bucks by economizing on labor costs, look around, there are plenty of businesses out there that have solid business plans, effective sales forces, and a willingness to pay their talent pool sufficiently to both attract good people and keep them so they can support this cash making machine they've got going. You might not find the right spot on the first try, or the first three tries, but if you're willing to settle in an abusive situation, you're not just a victim, you're part of the problem.
businesses are looking for a specific class of programmers: The low-paid programmers who have enough background to be useful but not enough background to demand a high salary.
If this is what businesses need - then great, let's get more of these people in the workforce.
I work at a different level of programming and industry experience, and I might demand 3x the salary that these guys do - but if we had 3 of these guys for every one of me, I wouldn't be wasting my time doing a lot of simple stuff that doesn't add as much value to the product as I could otherwise - the business as a whole would benefit by getting product to market faster, and they can still afford to pay my salary.
Worried that these 3 guys will work their way up to "your level" and compete your salary down? If you're really adding value at a high level, you shouldn't worry much, most of these guys will not be working their way up - it doesn't mean they're (all) worthless, just that there's a lot of simpler stuff that needs doing, and there always will be. Some of the new people will wash out, not cut out for desk work or whatever, some will muddle along fixing build scripts and addressing bug reports one at a time because that's what they're good at, and a rare few will become the new top architects - but, mostly, the new top architects will not be coming from public library based MOOC study groups, and when they do, they will mostly be "paying their dues" for a decade or two, like the rest of us.
before adopting something in an ad-hoc and flawed way
Like a National Healthcare portal?
The current monetary has no security beyond the criminal justice system.
Today, anyone who can get a photograph of one of your checks clear enough to read the routing and account numbers can forge a check on your account and deposit the funds to their account, entirely using their cell phone, without ever setting foot inside the territorial U.S.
V = 4/3 r cubed...
1300x diameter = 1300x radius.
1300 cubed is 2,200,000,000 - isn't it?
The article is a summary of a larger proposal. Even in the article, they state that power generation will be transitioned to other fuels / sources, workers retrained, etc.
Even if the larger proposal is less than perfect, it is examining relative costs and benefits of keeping vs. shutting down the coal industry. From their perspective, every dollar spent in closing down the coal industry will be paid back 2-3x in reduced costs like pollution, healthcare, etc. even after accounting for the increased cost of electricity and other items.
TL;DR: coal costs us more to keep than to get rid of.
Remember lead in paint and gasoline? Accurately accounting for the social/economic benefits of the lead phase out is impossible, but overall it is becoming quite clear that the lead phase-out was a win. Same for asbestos, CFCs and PCBs. For me, the jury is still out over removing arsenic from treated wood, but I think I can agree with their forecasting on coal. As for smaller scale uses of coal, those could continue, and yes, prices might rise in the short term, but actually, those industries would benefit in the longer term due to the reduced demand for coal for power, and therefore longer lifetime of the non-renewable resource.
The article is ignorant of how basic economics work.
The AC is ignorant of what was written in the article.
Details... maybe this will be the practical interface to optical interconnection?
The photosphere is a pretty clearly defined boundary.
If you want to go all "stellar windy" on the sun, it extends out beyond Pluto.
Size: implies volume.
However, the article's author throws around massive and mass as if they are also measuring the mass of the star "50% more massive than heavyweight Betelgeuse" - I don't think the actual astronomers are talking about mass...
Aluminum bodies.
So, when the party leaders refute their politics and "turn over a new leaf" - it's all better, then?
It's never simple...