Actually, the prices vary (if you look at the chart). In most areas, diesel is not cheaper. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not debating the MPG one gains by using diesel, nor am I saying that using diesel isn't a good thing. I'm merely pointing out that making a blanket statement that diesel is "cheaper at the pump" is not a correct statement.
If you don't want your ideas to be extended, you probably should keep them to yourself.
Should we apply that same logic to everyone? How about scientists? Philosophers? Spiritual Leaders? Teachers? Writers?...get it yet? Choosing to share an idea/composition/story with others is not the same thing as allowing others to claim it as their own and use it for their own intents.
You have no right to forbid people to sing your song (very badly and out of tune and very loud) in their car or in the shower. You have no right to forbid other musicians to play your songs in their garage.
If someone else thinks your music is good enough to be re-interpreted, you should be *proud*. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery. Also, it will serve to *increase* the popularity of the original material.
That's not what I'm suggesting in this particular case. Someone playing a cover version of a tune or singing a song along at a party (or something like that) is one thing. It's quite another thing to take actual copies of something and pass them off as one's own in an attempt to profit off of someone else's work. To use the (admittedly crude) example I used in a comment above, apply this same principle to whatever it is that you do for a living. Imagine several other people in your office decide they're going to report some hours on their timecard that you worked....and then they get paid for them as well, even though they weren't there the same hours you were. You probably wouldn't be a fan of that, I'd imagine. So why should it be that in the case of someone writing music (or for that matter creating any art) that it be measured any differently? Can I just change a few of the names in "To Kill a Mockingbird" and then sell the book as my own? No? Why not? Because it's plagiarism, plain and simple, and I'm saying that I think this type of situation isn't any different than feeling entitled to any other art form.
Good artists borrow; great artists steal. It's cliched because it's the absolute truth.
What a load of garbage. Do us all a favor, if you will. Please cite a few examples of where the following great artists stole:
Picasso Shakespeare Monet Beethoven Da Vinci Michaelangelo
etc etc
You can, of course, sue to get your Tasty Monies...Hope your ego can hold up to that notion.
What is your problem? I'm sorry if it bothers you that there are artists who would like to be able to derive some sort of income from creating and sharing music. Perhaps it's some jealousy on your part, perhaps your father was a musician who paid more attention to his instrument than you, or perhaps you're just a jerk...who knows? Your argument just doesn't hold up at all, and furthermore, its arrogance is quite astounding. You seem to feel that you (or others) has some inherent 'right' to do whatever the heck they want with anyone else's work. I would ask that you apply this same formula to what you do for your income and see what you think about it. Imagine someone gets to put your hours on their timecard and get paid for them as well as you (meanwhile you were the one who did the work). Wouldn't feel too good would it?
Trent Reznor wasn't cool with Johnny Cash performing Hurt. Doesn't matter now, does it?
You are mistaken. Seems Trent was fine with it, and more importantly he was asked first. That's the point that you, and a lot of others, tend to miss. This isn't about trying to stick it to anyone, and it isn't about trying to hit the lottery for one song. It's about not allowing others to decide what will or won't be done with something I've created. I resent the implication that my efforts should benefit someone else unless I agree to the terms.
Before the days of copyright, playwriters had bodyguards for the scripts they passed out to their actors because they feared if they took it home it could be copied....Content creators going to lenths and putting people through hardships as if copyright didn't exist. Forcing performers and audience alike to jump through hoops and swallow poor quality in an attempt to protect their precious works.
What's ironic? Your point seems to be that before the existence of copyrights, artists would sometimes protect their work with literal brute force. You then go on to imply that modern artists are somehow acting unreasonably by utilizing the copyright method for protecting their work (as if this is worse or equivalent to the body guards). Furthermore, you imply that people are having to endure "hardships" and are being asked to "jump through hoops" to access the art produced, which seems just ridiculous.
You want a Beatles song to listen to? Go buy it and listen....no hardship....no hoop to jump, and listen all you want. I think it's unfair to imply that any artist should be forced to allow his work to be used by anyone at any time in whatever way they deem necessary including ways that profit the person(s) doing the re-interpreting/re-imagining of the art. I understand people wanting something for free, and believe me, as an artist I do see the artistic value that comes out of re-interpreting music. However, to make the implication that ALL the work by ANY artist should just be allowed to be used however one pleases is very unreasonable. If it weren't, couldn't I just use the Mona Lisa for my Trademark? How about my favicon? Can I print it on T-Shirts and sell it? Can I change Holden Caufield's name to something else, and then sell my new interpretation of "The Catcher in the Rye"? No? Then why is it so different for music?
can't tolerate the thought of anyone getting ambitious and wanting to actually do something lucrative with it, like recombine elements of the Beatles' work into something new!
Fixed that for you. I see nothing wrong with wanting to protect their asset. If someone else wants to be creative, fine...let them go ahead and write some amazing music that transcends generations and then release it all for free, that's their choice. Just don't project their particular views onto others.
I believe that trying to 'make a quick buck' from the work of others is unethical. But creatively extending someone else's work is art.
As a composer/songwriter myself, I must ask: How do you intend to differentiate between these 2? Who should be the judge of that?
You have a right to your opinion, but I disagree with you and with others who seem to be vehemently opposed to the idea of there being any regulation of copyright. I'll never understand why it's perceived that wanting to protect something I've created from being used either in a way that I don't agree with, or in a way that someone else gets to benefit from is so wrong. Why on earth should I have to be cool with the idea of someone re-packaging or re-interpreting something I've done artistically? If I choose to allow that to happen, that's one thing. But, to assume that I should be forced to do so is a little one sided, in my opinion.
I will absolutely second this. My dad is a huge Chet Atkins fan, and a fan of Les Paul as well. As a result, I grew up listening to them both. I got to see Chet play live several times, but never got to see Les. I heard all the old 10 inch (yes, I do mean 10 inch) Les and Mary records, and it was the first time I considered the significance of multi track recording.
As a kid, my favorite story about Les Paul was the one briefly alluded to here. Apparently, Les broke his arm badly (shattered would be a better description). So, he had the doctor set his arm in a bent position so that he could still play the guitar since it would never really be mobile again. That is a true guitar player.
Thank you, Les, for everything. We will rock on in your honor.
Boy, are you dense! The only one droning on and on about 80 hour work weeks and 16 hour days is you. Nowhere in my replies have I said that this was required, nor did I say that anyone who worked less was a loser (nice try though).
For someone who likes to swear that "I never said I was dreadfully unhappy", all you seem to do is complain. You claim that you view your job is a means to an end (a paycheck), and then a few sentences later, you're going on and on about how they need to pay you more for your experience and they should know you're more valuable than this mythical "new guy". Doesn't sound like you're terribly happy....though it sounds like you're unwilling to do anything to change it...so you complain about it.
Get some therapy, man. Life's too short to be so miserable.
* Yes I'm a manager. No, I don't work 80 hour weeks. I make a nice, comfortable living, and have plenty of free time to enjoy my wife/family/interests. I constantly work to ensure I'm being the best boss I can be, as well as getting better at my job in general. I manage up and down.
**Oh, and if I inherited you (because I'd never hire you), I'd make it my mission to remove you from my staff before you ruin everyone's work ethic with your drivel.
You sound like a complete corporate tool....Don't be an idiot...You're a freak
You know, I tried really hard to be offended by your tantrum, but in the end I just couldn't. Rather, I feel pity for you, and anyone who has to deal with your adolescent attitude. I hope that when you grow up, you are able to change some of the ways you look at life and deal with people, because the road you're on now only leads downhill.
You, sir, are a loser. Until you change your childish attitude, you will always be a loser.
Geez, someone better call Aesop, as I think we've found the reincarnation of the fox.
I have far more interesting things I could be doing with my time than working on some boring BS for a corporation. When I figure out how to make more money doing those things than my regular job nets me, I'll quit.
While you're dreaming, get me a pony. Look dude, to quote Tyler Durden, "You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else". Very few people get to do what they LOVE for their job. When we're young, we all dream of a day when we can make enough money doing whatever it is that we love. Once we get a few years of life experience, we begin to realize that employment is a means to an end. Sure, you don't love what you do, but hopefully you figure out a way to find a balance between what you earn, and what freedom(s) you're afforded.
What corporate job are you ever going to have where you can build something to be "proud" of?
With that attitude...none. If you're expecting pride and satisfaction to just creep into you via osmosis, you're going to be waiting a while. Life is what you make of it, dude, and that includes work life. If you go into work expecting to hate it, guess what, you're going to hate it. If you constantly remind yourself that what you do is boring/stupid/meaningless, I'm betting you'll keep believing it. If you're so unhappy, quit and stop whining. If it's so bad, find something better. If it's not so bad, lighten up and focus on the things in your life that you do enjoy.
The only responsibility I have is to show up every day and do my duties for 8 hours, in exchange for a paycheck....You don't get it: there ARE no raises, dumbass! The only raises given out are bare-minimum, "cost of living" raises, like 2-3%, IF you're lucky. Usually, instead you just get a pat on the back and "sorry, but there's no money in the budget this year for raises.
So you seem to be misinformed. You seem to think that companies need to just magically pay you more money just because they feel like it, eh? Let me put the shoe on the other foot for you, should your bank expect you to just start paying more on your mortgage? Should your car loan just ratchet up the interest rate since the auto industry has a need for more money? No? Then why the hell do you feel entitled to more money if you're going to persist in a lousy attitude and no willingness to add value to your employer? Why in the world would they pay you dramatically more for what you already do if they're not going to get any additional "payback" for what they're paying? Hate to be the one to break it to you, but you are the one holding you back.
Keep on spending all your waking hours at work and being a complete tool, while your wife bones other men and eventually leaves you. It happened to tons of people at Intel while I was working there.
Sorry if this happened to you/your friends. However, this doesn't give you a license to be miserable. You can choose to be miserable, or you can choose not to be, it's really not that hard. If you're so dissatisfied, then quit and do something else. If you can't be bothered to quit, then shut up! No one wants to listen to someone who wants to constantly bitch about their situation yet is unwilling to do anything to change/improve it. Who would want to be around someone who does nothing but malign and criticize others who achieve things?
Yeah, and while you're at it, go ahead and forget any books on finance/money management. Just concentrate on being rich, and all of the advice about "savings", "budgets", and "spending" will fall right in line.
I have to agree with this. The real irony is, the GP speaks (rather arrogantly) that he doesn't think intelligent people need to read books in order to get good advice on how to have a good marriage.....and then proceeds to post on how one ought to have a happy marriage. Is it OK to read marriage/relationship advice if it's in the comment section of Slashdot, but not OK in a printed book?
I agree with the parent here. Just like anything else in life, you can never improve too much. To that end, why should it be bad to seek wisdom/advice from books, or spiritual advice, or therapists/counselors, or family, or other married friends, etc etc.
That's not to say that one should obsess on trying to be "perfect" (that will never happen), but there is nothing wrong with working toward a goal of being the best you can be. Just like your own life, a marriage is like a shared life. You both exist on your own, as your own people, with your own interests and personalities. At the same time, you have this shared life that must be maintained in the same manner as your own, individual life. In short, don't ever stop growing!
Mod parent up. As a married man myself, I can attest that trying to keep the "don't go to bed angry" myth as a practice can serve to make small, petty disagreements into large scale fights due to the lack of sleep. This gets compounded even further when/if kids are involved and your sleep becomes even more precious.
I must respectfully disagree. You'd be surprised how often experience trumps education in the engineering field. I should know, I work in the field. Mind you, I'm not saying that a degree has no value, but I am saying that one does not necessarily need a degree to find a good job and do well.
If you have chilled water, you have a chiller, which means you have compressors
While I agree with you on that point, I think what the GP was saying is that it is indeed possible that the CRAC units being used at Google's "Chiller-less" Data Center could very well have compressors contained in them, along with condenser barrels.
You'll notice TFA does not specifically say that there is no mechanical cooling happening at this site, only that their focus is on free cooling. It could very well be that these CRACs have the ability to modulate between mechanical cooling and water side economizer cycle using a water coil. It would be interesting to find out if this were the case.
Something's not adding up in your story. First of all, (and I'll probably get modded into oblivion for this) it sounds like you bought a house you either couldn't afford or were unwilling to pay for. You calmly claim that you "fell behind" 3 months, were allowed to enter an agreement with the bank to fix that problem, and still complain that in 2 years they wanted their money with interest....the nerve!! Let's put the shoe on the other foot. If your employer stopped paying your check for 3 months, wouldn't you want your money back ASAP and with some interest?
I also do not understand how you were able to repay the 3 month's worth of mortgage owed, but were unable to come up with the interest on the delinquent charges. How is it that in 2 years and 3 months, you couldn't come up with the interest on the 3 month's payments?
Then, to top it off, you claim that your home was foreclosed on, you were refunded 1 year's worth of payments, and that the house was put on the market for 1 year's worth of house payments. I'm going to have to call B.S. on this one. I realize that we're in a "down market" as they call it, but trying to tell me that your home went back on the market for 1/30 of its original price is a little much.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the prices vary (if you look at the chart). In most areas, diesel is not cheaper. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not debating the MPG one gains by using diesel, nor am I saying that using diesel isn't a good thing. I'm merely pointing out that making a blanket statement that diesel is "cheaper at the pump" is not a correct statement.
Obligatory
significantly cheaper at the pump
I don't think that's correct.
No no no....we are stardust, we are golden, we are billion year old carbon.
Yes, I am holding Shakespeare up as an example as I am not one who subscribes to the "Oxfordian" conspiracy theory.
If you don't want your ideas to be extended, you probably should keep them to yourself.
Should we apply that same logic to everyone? How about scientists? Philosophers? Spiritual Leaders? Teachers? Writers?...get it yet? Choosing to share an idea/composition/story with others is not the same thing as allowing others to claim it as their own and use it for their own intents.
You have no right to forbid people to sing your song (very badly and out of tune and very loud) in their car or in the shower. You have no right to forbid other musicians to play your songs in their garage. If someone else thinks your music is good enough to be re-interpreted, you should be *proud*. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery. Also, it will serve to *increase* the popularity of the original material.
That's not what I'm suggesting in this particular case. Someone playing a cover version of a tune or singing a song along at a party (or something like that) is one thing. It's quite another thing to take actual copies of something and pass them off as one's own in an attempt to profit off of someone else's work. To use the (admittedly crude) example I used in a comment above, apply this same principle to whatever it is that you do for a living. Imagine several other people in your office decide they're going to report some hours on their timecard that you worked....and then they get paid for them as well, even though they weren't there the same hours you were. You probably wouldn't be a fan of that, I'd imagine. So why should it be that in the case of someone writing music (or for that matter creating any art) that it be measured any differently? Can I just change a few of the names in "To Kill a Mockingbird" and then sell the book as my own? No? Why not? Because it's plagiarism, plain and simple, and I'm saying that I think this type of situation isn't any different than feeling entitled to any other art form.
Good artists borrow; great artists steal. It's cliched because it's the absolute truth.
What a load of garbage. Do us all a favor, if you will. Please cite a few examples of where the following great artists stole:
Picasso
Shakespeare
Monet
Beethoven
Da Vinci
Michaelangelo
etc etc
You can, of course, sue to get your Tasty Monies...Hope your ego can hold up to that notion.
What is your problem? I'm sorry if it bothers you that there are artists who would like to be able to derive some sort of income from creating and sharing music. Perhaps it's some jealousy on your part, perhaps your father was a musician who paid more attention to his instrument than you, or perhaps you're just a jerk...who knows? Your argument just doesn't hold up at all, and furthermore, its arrogance is quite astounding. You seem to feel that you (or others) has some inherent 'right' to do whatever the heck they want with anyone else's work. I would ask that you apply this same formula to what you do for your income and see what you think about it. Imagine someone gets to put your hours on their timecard and get paid for them as well as you (meanwhile you were the one who did the work). Wouldn't feel too good would it?
Trent Reznor wasn't cool with Johnny Cash performing Hurt. Doesn't matter now, does it?
You are mistaken. Seems Trent was fine with it, and more importantly he was asked first. That's the point that you, and a lot of others, tend to miss. This isn't about trying to stick it to anyone, and it isn't about trying to hit the lottery for one song. It's about not allowing others to decide what will or won't be done with something I've created. I resent the implication that my efforts should benefit someone else unless I agree to the terms.
Before the days of copyright, playwriters had bodyguards for the scripts they passed out to their actors because they feared if they took it home it could be copied....Content creators going to lenths and putting people through hardships as if copyright didn't exist. Forcing performers and audience alike to jump through hoops and swallow poor quality in an attempt to protect their precious works.
What's ironic? Your point seems to be that before the existence of copyrights, artists would sometimes protect their work with literal brute force. You then go on to imply that modern artists are somehow acting unreasonably by utilizing the copyright method for protecting their work (as if this is worse or equivalent to the body guards). Furthermore, you imply that people are having to endure "hardships" and are being asked to "jump through hoops" to access the art produced, which seems just ridiculous.
You want a Beatles song to listen to? Go buy it and listen....no hardship....no hoop to jump, and listen all you want. I think it's unfair to imply that any artist should be forced to allow his work to be used by anyone at any time in whatever way they deem necessary including ways that profit the person(s) doing the re-interpreting/re-imagining of the art. I understand people wanting something for free, and believe me, as an artist I do see the artistic value that comes out of re-interpreting music. However, to make the implication that ALL the work by ANY artist should just be allowed to be used however one pleases is very unreasonable. If it weren't, couldn't I just use the Mona Lisa for my Trademark? How about my favicon? Can I print it on T-Shirts and sell it? Can I change Holden Caufield's name to something else, and then sell my new interpretation of "The Catcher in the Rye"? No? Then why is it so different for music?
can't tolerate the thought of anyone getting ambitious and wanting to actually do something lucrative with it, like recombine elements of the Beatles' work into something new!
Fixed that for you. I see nothing wrong with wanting to protect their asset. If someone else wants to be creative, fine...let them go ahead and write some amazing music that transcends generations and then release it all for free, that's their choice. Just don't project their particular views onto others.
I believe that trying to 'make a quick buck' from the work of others is unethical. But creatively extending someone else's work is art.
As a composer/songwriter myself, I must ask: How do you intend to differentiate between these 2? Who should be the judge of that?
You have a right to your opinion, but I disagree with you and with others who seem to be vehemently opposed to the idea of there being any regulation of copyright. I'll never understand why it's perceived that wanting to protect something I've created from being used either in a way that I don't agree with, or in a way that someone else gets to benefit from is so wrong. Why on earth should I have to be cool with the idea of someone re-packaging or re-interpreting something I've done artistically? If I choose to allow that to happen, that's one thing. But, to assume that I should be forced to do so is a little one sided, in my opinion.
Not really.
I will absolutely second this. My dad is a huge Chet Atkins fan, and a fan of Les Paul as well. As a result, I grew up listening to them both. I got to see Chet play live several times, but never got to see Les. I heard all the old 10 inch (yes, I do mean 10 inch) Les and Mary records, and it was the first time I considered the significance of multi track recording.
As a kid, my favorite story about Les Paul was the one briefly alluded to here. Apparently, Les broke his arm badly (shattered would be a better description). So, he had the doctor set his arm in a bent position so that he could still play the guitar since it would never really be mobile again. That is a true guitar player.
Thank you, Les, for everything. We will rock on in your honor.
Boy, are you dense! The only one droning on and on about 80 hour work weeks and 16 hour days is you. Nowhere in my replies have I said that this was required, nor did I say that anyone who worked less was a loser (nice try though).
For someone who likes to swear that "I never said I was dreadfully unhappy", all you seem to do is complain. You claim that you view your job is a means to an end (a paycheck), and then a few sentences later, you're going on and on about how they need to pay you more for your experience and they should know you're more valuable than this mythical "new guy". Doesn't sound like you're terribly happy....though it sounds like you're unwilling to do anything to change it...so you complain about it.
Get some therapy, man. Life's too short to be so miserable.
* Yes I'm a manager. No, I don't work 80 hour weeks. I make a nice, comfortable living, and have plenty of free time to enjoy my wife/family/interests. I constantly work to ensure I'm being the best boss I can be, as well as getting better at my job in general. I manage up and down.
**Oh, and if I inherited you (because I'd never hire you), I'd make it my mission to remove you from my staff before you ruin everyone's work ethic with your drivel.
You sound like a complete corporate tool....Don't be an idiot...You're a freak
You know, I tried really hard to be offended by your tantrum, but in the end I just couldn't. Rather, I feel pity for you, and anyone who has to deal with your adolescent attitude. I hope that when you grow up, you are able to change some of the ways you look at life and deal with people, because the road you're on now only leads downhill.
You, sir, are a loser. Until you change your childish attitude, you will always be a loser.
I have far more interesting things I could be doing with my time than working on some boring BS for a corporation. When I figure out how to make more money doing those things than my regular job nets me, I'll quit.
While you're dreaming, get me a pony. Look dude, to quote Tyler Durden, "You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else". Very few people get to do what they LOVE for their job. When we're young, we all dream of a day when we can make enough money doing whatever it is that we love. Once we get a few years of life experience, we begin to realize that employment is a means to an end. Sure, you don't love what you do, but hopefully you figure out a way to find a balance between what you earn, and what freedom(s) you're afforded.
What corporate job are you ever going to have where you can build something to be "proud" of?
With that attitude...none. If you're expecting pride and satisfaction to just creep into you via osmosis, you're going to be waiting a while. Life is what you make of it, dude, and that includes work life. If you go into work expecting to hate it, guess what, you're going to hate it. If you constantly remind yourself that what you do is boring/stupid/meaningless, I'm betting you'll keep believing it. If you're so unhappy, quit and stop whining. If it's so bad, find something better. If it's not so bad, lighten up and focus on the things in your life that you do enjoy.
The only responsibility I have is to show up every day and do my duties for 8 hours, in exchange for a paycheck....You don't get it: there ARE no raises, dumbass! The only raises given out are bare-minimum, "cost of living" raises, like 2-3%, IF you're lucky. Usually, instead you just get a pat on the back and "sorry, but there's no money in the budget this year for raises.
So you seem to be misinformed. You seem to think that companies need to just magically pay you more money just because they feel like it, eh? Let me put the shoe on the other foot for you, should your bank expect you to just start paying more on your mortgage? Should your car loan just ratchet up the interest rate since the auto industry has a need for more money? No? Then why the hell do you feel entitled to more money if you're going to persist in a lousy attitude and no willingness to add value to your employer? Why in the world would they pay you dramatically more for what you already do if they're not going to get any additional "payback" for what they're paying? Hate to be the one to break it to you, but you are the one holding you back.
Keep on spending all your waking hours at work and being a complete tool, while your wife bones other men and eventually leaves you. It happened to tons of people at Intel while I was working there.
Sorry if this happened to you/your friends. However, this doesn't give you a license to be miserable. You can choose to be miserable, or you can choose not to be, it's really not that hard. If you're so dissatisfied, then quit and do something else. If you can't be bothered to quit, then shut up! No one wants to listen to someone who wants to constantly bitch about their situation yet is unwilling to do anything to change/improve it. Who would want to be around someone who does nothing but malign and criticize others who achieve things?
Yeah, and while you're at it, go ahead and forget any books on finance/money management. Just concentrate on being rich, and all of the advice about "savings", "budgets", and "spending" will fall right in line.
/sarcasm]
[
I have to agree with this. The real irony is, the GP speaks (rather arrogantly) that he doesn't think intelligent people need to read books in order to get good advice on how to have a good marriage.....and then proceeds to post on how one ought to have a happy marriage. Is it OK to read marriage/relationship advice if it's in the comment section of Slashdot, but not OK in a printed book?
I agree with the parent here. Just like anything else in life, you can never improve too much. To that end, why should it be bad to seek wisdom/advice from books, or spiritual advice, or therapists/counselors, or family, or other married friends, etc etc.
That's not to say that one should obsess on trying to be "perfect" (that will never happen), but there is nothing wrong with working toward a goal of being the best you can be. Just like your own life, a marriage is like a shared life. You both exist on your own, as your own people, with your own interests and personalities. At the same time, you have this shared life that must be maintained in the same manner as your own, individual life. In short, don't ever stop growing!
If you're not growing, you're dying.
Mod parent up. As a married man myself, I can attest that trying to keep the "don't go to bed angry" myth as a practice can serve to make small, petty disagreements into large scale fights due to the lack of sleep. This gets compounded even further when/if kids are involved and your sleep becomes even more precious.
I must respectfully disagree. You'd be surprised how often experience trumps education in the engineering field. I should know, I work in the field. Mind you, I'm not saying that a degree has no value, but I am saying that one does not necessarily need a degree to find a good job and do well.
A degree is one of the things that gets you in the door.
Fixed that for you. While I agree, a degree in the field can give an applicant an edge on his/her competition, it is by no means the only way.
I agree, but I'd add liability. If it's outsourced, you have someone to blame/punch if something goes wrong.
How in the world is this a troll?
Maybe the mods are disgruntled diabetics with no sense of humor.
Why am I suddenly reminded of Caddyshack?
If you have chilled water, you have a chiller, which means you have compressors
While I agree with you on that point, I think what the GP was saying is that it is indeed possible that the CRAC units being used at Google's "Chiller-less" Data Center could very well have compressors contained in them, along with condenser barrels.
You'll notice TFA does not specifically say that there is no mechanical cooling happening at this site, only that their focus is on free cooling. It could very well be that these CRACs have the ability to modulate between mechanical cooling and water side economizer cycle using a water coil. It would be interesting to find out if this were the case.
Something's not adding up in your story. First of all, (and I'll probably get modded into oblivion for this) it sounds like you bought a house you either couldn't afford or were unwilling to pay for. You calmly claim that you "fell behind" 3 months, were allowed to enter an agreement with the bank to fix that problem, and still complain that in 2 years they wanted their money with interest....the nerve!! Let's put the shoe on the other foot. If your employer stopped paying your check for 3 months, wouldn't you want your money back ASAP and with some interest?
I also do not understand how you were able to repay the 3 month's worth of mortgage owed, but were unable to come up with the interest on the delinquent charges. How is it that in 2 years and 3 months, you couldn't come up with the interest on the 3 month's payments?
Then, to top it off, you claim that your home was foreclosed on, you were refunded 1 year's worth of payments, and that the house was put on the market for 1 year's worth of house payments. I'm going to have to call B.S. on this one. I realize that we're in a "down market" as they call it, but trying to tell me that your home went back on the market for 1/30 of its original price is a little much.