On my desk, I have one LED for my monitor, it's always on even if the monitor is off (totally unnecessary, imho).
Actually, that means your monitor is on. The actual power is on "sleep mode" when the LED is on. To turn it off you have to press the button which turns it off. This cuts the circuit entirely, saving tons of power.
You know, this is why people like me served in the Canadian Army... and why Canada has won every time the US has invaded...
Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it... how's that Iraq thing working for you? Canada's tired of doing all the work in Afghanistan and not being allowed to attack bin Laden in Pakistan, FYI.
Investors in motor companies likely don't care about electric power generation, and vice versa.
20th Century thinking. In the 22nd Century (now), cars can be used as batteries to provide cheap power during periods when energy demand is high and can store it when energy demand is low - same with houses and buildings.
Just ask Los Angeles - they're investigating implementing a system for this, as are many other western states which love capitalism.
Caveat: I am a major investor in utilities, power companies, oil firms and their suppliers - holding usually 100 to 500 shares in many such firms. Unlike you, I am an investor in such things, although I have never had direct holdings in battery firms (e.g. Ballard Power), but I think my brother invested in the pre-IPO stage of some.
For 90 percent of the world's population, global warming, and the connected rising acidity of the seas is an unmitigated disaster, especially for the 40 percent that live in the low elevation coastal areas.
For the 10 percent of the world living in cold mountainous regions in upper temperate zones, where they have sufficient water and will have more arable land, it's great, although the changes in growing seasons and plant and animal life suited for those regions will cause massive change, it's better.
Only someone who thinks only about themselves would regard global warming as a plus.
Please note: I have spent most of my life in the areas that will benefit from these changes, and even I think the disruption effect will be far worse than any beneficial rewards of global warming. Most of the people promoting this are just GW naysayers who don't want to have to deal with the real costs of reality in the 22nd Century.
All emissions are bad, but its better that we use oil now and drive up the cost than not use oil and enable non-environmentally concious nations (such as China and India) access to cheap oil for their sudden and massive automobile market. So while we turn 10 million cars from gas to electric, producing no emission, the chinese unlease 10 million new gas cars which 5 times the emissions of older american cars.
Um. And in the meantime you cause irreparable damage to the environment. We need oil to make plastics from, and for our fighter jets and bombers, until you can get into commercial production bio replacements for such things.
Just think of what happened when we switched from whale oil to petroleum, or from coal oil to whale oil. The impacts are more severe, and right now we are looking at worldwide oceanic acidity rising to levels that will kill off the fish the world's population depends on by 2040.
I say no. And who said China and India should get a free ride? At least they are doing scientific research (ten times what we do in the US) on wind energy, solar energy, and biomass, while we just talk and talk and talk here in the USA.
interesting viewpoint. Assuming that the dollar funding for all such areas is growing, the question then becomes, which has the highest impact for the dollars spent and what share should it get.
Well, I could have said we should move to IPv6 and new HTML and other forms, but that wasn't the root topic.
Regardless, even with forwarding such bank hijack attempts to the Secret Service at 419.fcd@usss.treas.gov - these are attempts to play on people's lack of technical knowledge and lack of forethought in replying to emails.
You can close as many doors as you want, but if you left the coal shoot door open and the basement door unlocked, your house is not secure. Or in 22nd century terms, domain restrictions will only make it more obvious who are the sloppy coders amongst the bank fraudsters, but won't stop gullible consumers from being fleeced.
First, if you live in a country where most software is pirated in commercial offices, not doing so is competitively disadvantageous.
Second, if the definition of pirating by another country does not match the law and practice in the country in which this occurs, you need to ask what the definition of pirating is.
Third, it depends on the utility and usage - do you use it often? what type of firm are you?
Fourth, it depends on who the money goes to. For example, does it go to Larry Ellison to buy more yachts?
Fifth, it depends on how long it takes to get a legit copy - if it would take you four years to do the paperwork to install a legit copy after purchasing it, why are you doing this?
And, sixth, it depends on if the software firm that produced said software stole your concepts and patented or copyrighted them.
But, most of all, it really depends on how much you are getting ripped off for when information just wants to be free...
Look, unlike some posters in this thread, my first degree was actually in Business, with a concentration on Sales and Marketing, both of which I have done.
Please, log off, stand up, go outside, see the real world outside, and try to understand it. It is not a game like your FPS. It exists.
Slashdot Mirror
On my desk, I have one LED for my monitor, it's always on even if the monitor is off (totally unnecessary, imho).
Actually, that means your monitor is on. The actual power is on "sleep mode" when the LED is on. To turn it off you have to press the button which turns it off. This cuts the circuit entirely, saving tons of power.
How else am I supposed to find my way around my townhouse at 2:30 am?
Next thing you know you will try to tell me the US economy is doing great right now - when even the WSJ admits it isn't.
At one point I owned more than 1 percent of all the shares in (at last count) three separate public firms - not that it matters.
oh, I doubt you have more than $10,000 invested in any individual firms.
so I think we can just ignore you, since you know little about actual investing.
And am proud that we can now give them artificial blood as they build our Future of Tomorrow today!
I'm a dual citizen, babe.
#3: BLAME CANADA! no wait, INVADE CANADA!
... and why Canada has won every time the US has invaded ...
... how's that Iraq thing working for you? Canada's tired of doing all the work in Afghanistan and not being allowed to attack bin Laden in Pakistan, FYI.
You know, this is why people like me served in the Canadian Army
Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it
Investors in motor companies likely don't care about electric power generation, and vice versa.
20th Century thinking. In the 22nd Century (now), cars can be used as batteries to provide cheap power during periods when energy demand is high and can store it when energy demand is low - same with houses and buildings.
Just ask Los Angeles - they're investigating implementing a system for this, as are many other western states which love capitalism.
Caveat: I am a major investor in utilities, power companies, oil firms and their suppliers - holding usually 100 to 500 shares in many such firms. Unlike you, I am an investor in such things, although I have never had direct holdings in battery firms (e.g. Ballard Power), but I think my brother invested in the pre-IPO stage of some.
For 90 percent of the world's population, global warming, and the connected rising acidity of the seas is an unmitigated disaster, especially for the 40 percent that live in the low elevation coastal areas.
For the 10 percent of the world living in cold mountainous regions in upper temperate zones, where they have sufficient water and will have more arable land, it's great, although the changes in growing seasons and plant and animal life suited for those regions will cause massive change, it's better.
Only someone who thinks only about themselves would regard global warming as a plus.
Please note: I have spent most of my life in the areas that will benefit from these changes, and even I think the disruption effect will be far worse than any beneficial rewards of global warming. Most of the people promoting this are just GW naysayers who don't want to have to deal with the real costs of reality in the 22nd Century.
All emissions are bad, but its better that we use oil now and drive up the cost than not use oil and enable non-environmentally concious nations (such as China and India) access to cheap oil for their sudden and massive automobile market. So while we turn 10 million cars from gas to electric, producing no emission, the chinese unlease 10 million new gas cars which 5 times the emissions of older american cars.
Um. And in the meantime you cause irreparable damage to the environment. We need oil to make plastics from, and for our fighter jets and bombers, until you can get into commercial production bio replacements for such things.
Just think of what happened when we switched from whale oil to petroleum, or from coal oil to whale oil. The impacts are more severe, and right now we are looking at worldwide oceanic acidity rising to levels that will kill off the fish the world's population depends on by 2040.
I say no. And who said China and India should get a free ride? At least they are doing scientific research (ten times what we do in the US) on wind energy, solar energy, and biomass, while we just talk and talk and talk here in the USA.
interesting viewpoint. Assuming that the dollar funding for all such areas is growing, the question then becomes, which has the highest impact for the dollars spent and what share should it get.
or we could just outlaw SUVs.
And develop better power supplies and methods to capture solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, and other energy sources.
Efficiency is at optimum use - in practice, it depends upon lifespan use for engines.
Not to mention no really good games for the PS3 ... wonder if the two are related?
well, academia is the most fun, but you can work for for-profit medical research and biotech firms as well, like Amgen and so on.
It's almost the same, but totally different. Your skills are useful, you do good every day, and you wake up each morning with a fresh zest for life.
After this, when I get my Ph.D. in Econ, I'll become a prof in Canada doing that. Go back to writing books and papers. That is fun too.
Well, I could have said we should move to IPv6 and new HTML and other forms, but that wasn't the root topic.
Regardless, even with forwarding such bank hijack attempts to the Secret Service at 419.fcd@usss.treas.gov - these are attempts to play on people's lack of technical knowledge and lack of forethought in replying to emails.
You can close as many doors as you want, but if you left the coal shoot door open and the basement door unlocked, your house is not secure. Or in 22nd century terms, domain restrictions will only make it more obvious who are the sloppy coders amongst the bank fraudsters, but won't stop gullible consumers from being fleeced.
Most users don't actually check where their links go.
.bank, after it did it's job of redirecting your account.
The top domain could even point to
All it needs is your login and password.
I mean, the rate they charge to play WoW works out to a massively reduced rate from that of US customers, when you do the exchange rate.
...
And this is why there is growth
Someone who does those things online might be likely to do them IRL.
First, if you live in a country where most software is pirated in commercial offices, not doing so is competitively disadvantageous.
...
Second, if the definition of pirating by another country does not match the law and practice in the country in which this occurs, you need to ask what the definition of pirating is.
Third, it depends on the utility and usage - do you use it often? what type of firm are you?
Fourth, it depends on who the money goes to. For example, does it go to Larry Ellison to buy more yachts?
Fifth, it depends on how long it takes to get a legit copy - if it would take you four years to do the paperwork to install a legit copy after purchasing it, why are you doing this?
And, sixth, it depends on if the software firm that produced said software stole your concepts and patented or copyrighted them.
But, most of all, it really depends on how much you are getting ripped off for when information just wants to be free
Amusing. It just shows how little you have experienced of the world.
That is patentable?
... 1980s!
Strange, I recall using breakpoints with that back in the
SNAFU.
The Market "is" an ideology?
My.
Look, unlike some posters in this thread, my first degree was actually in Business, with a concentration on Sales and Marketing, both of which I have done.
Please, log off, stand up, go outside, see the real world outside, and try to understand it. It is not a game like your FPS. It exists.
The Economist is NOT right wing. They're moderate-liberal. As is the Wall Street Journal except for their editorial page.
Only an American far right winger would say that. From the viewpoint of most of the world, they are, indeed, right wing.
The US is not the only place in the world, nor the most interesting. It just happens to be where some of us were born and live.
And was wondering what they would do with those underground transit lines ... hmmm, let's just stuff wood in them and call it Internet2!