Hell, you can afford to spend more if you use public transit for everything, have no cars, and use something like ZipCars for those I-really-need-a-car moments.
I disagree. I'm a fiscal conservative but a social liberal. I have no problems with tax money providing a social safety net (and would prefer to see the US have Western Europe-style "social nets"). To steal from another Slashdotters signature, "I like taxes; they buy me civilization."
What I want is efficient spending. Get me the biggest bang for my buck.
Conversely, I *do not* want my tax money wasted. I've worked for the federal government through the DOE on an LHC detector. I've *seen* how the money is wasted (no, the LHC isn't a waste, I watched how a DOE lab's computing division burned money away because, heh, we've got it, might as well spend it even if we don't need it). To the point, I'm saying "Take my tax money", but please, use it as efficiently as possible.
The top four things we spend money on are: Social Security, Medicare, Defense, and Medicaid. Which of those would you like to cut first? And where will you be hiding when the interests behind each one come after you?
The EPA or USDOT should have a consumer-friendly guide like fueleconomy.gov for how much damage/costs generated are based on a vehicles weight. Between my wife and I, we own a Camry Hybrid, a Toyota Tundra pickup, and a Tesla Roadster, and we try to drive the pickup only when necessary (and when it must be used, I usually use an aluminum trailer to spread the load out).
So much this. CSX/Union Pacific are amazingly efficient when it comes to tons of freight moved per gallon of fuel. Trucks should only be used from rail distribution points/hubs to final destinations that have no rail access whatsoever.
Return the phone. You have 15 days from purchase date I believe. I'm at T-mobile customer with a Nexus One and I'll be looking to move to Sprint or Verizon after the T-Mobile purchase.
Which is a gamble to say the least. Why waste your margin/advertising budget on Groupon when you can spend it in more productive ways. And before you say "How do you know what is more productive?", I worked at Restaurant.com for a bit, and their business model is very close to GroupOn (but focused just on food service/dining). I've done my research.
There isn't a business in this world that has ever (seriously) complained about having too many customers.
Yes, there is. You want *profitable* customers. If you lose money on each customer, what are you going to do? Make it up on volume? (Insert "That's the joke" here)
I thought groupon was nuts not to take Google's offer, but this -- this is madness. They have a larger user base for sure, but their current business model does not support this valuation.
It'll be interesting to see what investors get burned by this. Facebook at least can keep trying to figure out how to monetize all it's users. Groupon? Anyone can do what they do. Your company only has value if only you can do what you do (copyright, patent, exclusive rights granted by the FDA, etc) or there is a high barrier to entry.
You're not poor until the debt comes due. And depending on the creditor, you simply walk away. Boom, clean balance sheet, as long as your assets aren't securing the debt.
Correct. It all depends on what equipment you have in theater. If all you have is a Global Hawk, you send it to provide information back to ground forces. If you have a Reaper, well, the problem is that much easier to solve.
I agree with your statements regarding paperwork, to an extent. I have yet to see the UN NOT drag it's feet when atrosicites are being committed against a country's own citizens, so I have very little to no respect for them. I'm also not a US military fanboy. I *do* believe we have an extremely sharp tooth that should be used when called for (Darfur, Libya, etc) but we should never do something like Iraq or Afghanistan in the future.
My research shows that a Tomahawk cruise missile costs $1.1-1.4 million. JDAMS cost between $35K and $75K. So, most of the cost depends on if you want to risk aircraft to save on the cost of the Tomahawks. But, as you said, you'd surpress anti-air forces to get air superiority, and at that point you rule the sky.
Bonus points if you can use triangulation from multiple people to feed back to Predator/Global Hawk drones that can be directed autonomously to the predicted location of the sniper/gunmen is. You'll still want an Air Force office confirming before firing, but you can automate the fark out of this.
Something else you might want to try is RainX. It's a hydrophobic silicone polymer that you can apply on the outside of the windshield to repel water. It works well enough that I also use it in our home on the glass shower doors to lengthen the time between us having to clean the inside of the shower.
You're not the target audience then. I own a Roadster, and have money down on the Model S, and I like what they're doing with it. That's what I want out of a ~$50K luxury sedan. If I wanted a bare bones Yaris, I'd go buy a Yaris.
Disagree. The ground war will be fought by the rebels (with weapons provided by Egypt, funded by the US government). The US will provide air cover remotely via drones and maybe larger equipment already there. As long as the US doesn't have to deal with a ground war, it'll be fine.
I don't care what country you lead or who you are, as soon as you begin the murder of your country's civilians, any other country reserves the right to remove you from power by force.
As a US citizen, I very much hope aircraft are waiting on the ground for all the paperwork to go through and can get there quickly. Frankly, after Iraq and Afghanistan, I think we should just fark the paperwork after Gaddafi started murdering civilians, but heh, it's the US government.
I'd also be satisfied with cruise missiles taking out SAM sites and airfields, although thats quite a bit more expensive than B-52s carpet bombing those sites.
Of course, if the price of oil products are allowed to drop all the time preventing the development of alternative energy infrastructure, how are we ever supposed to be ready for $10/gallon gas? We wont. A price floor needs to be instituted, that gradually rises over time.
I was fortunate to meet Dale Katechis, the founder of Oskar Blues brewery a few years ago at Brewtopia. There in the midst of all these breweries and their countless bottles was a table filled with cans. Huh? It seemed so strange. Yet for Dale, it was a subtle war cry; a shot across the stern of the micro beer community. Dale’s Pale Ale was not just a great beer, but also a new philosophy: the Can is King. Backed by the belief in “less air, less light”, Dale was upbeat, passionate and grounded in his renegade ways. And the beer? Unbelievable. Featuring caramel toffee notes highlighted by fresh hops and an intoxicatingly smooth balance, it is delicious, and was deemed the Top Colorado Brewed Beer by the Rocky Mtn News in November, as well as the NY Times pick as the Best Pale Ale in America in 2005.
So fast-forward a few years, and cans are now popping up everywhere in the craft beer world. Breweries like Butternuts in upstate New York, New Belgium in Ft Collins, Colorado, and most recently Sly Fox from Pennsylvania, to name a few, have begun canning. They’re on the band wagon, and are espousing the advantages of the can: better protection from light and air, easier storage and transport, as well as a quicker cooling time for your tailgate fiestasSo what does that mean for us, the beer drinkers?
Well, frankly, better beer. Be it canned or bottled, brewers are testing and reinventing the ways we package our prized beverages. Concerned with the freshness of their beer, every detail is being scrutinized (and argued over). But honestly, bottles aren’t going away. The only thing that’s really changing? You’re going to find some damn tasty microbrews in cans. So embrace them, my friends. Embrace them without shame. The can will serve you well.
Actually, I was talking to a brewmaster at the Samuel Adams brewery two weeks ago (went on a tour), and he said cans are best because they shield the beer from the effects of sunlight (which are the biggest enemy of beer during transport/storage). Glass is used because people like glass bottles more than cans, hence why the glass bottles are as deep a brown as possible (to prevent as much sunlight from hitting the beer).
For soda though, I don't think it's going to matter much if light his the industrial cleaner (boric/phosphoric acid) used to flavor the drinks =)
I don't worry like I would if a coal plant was nearby, and if they were to offer hot water in addition to power, I'd buy both from them if I could get a piece of property close enough.
Sir, I'm not an industry apologist. I'm a scientific realist. There is a stark difference, and you better fucking learn it. I don't believe in useless things like religion, but these are days that I'm glad you're some shmuck on Slashdot and intelligent, reasonable people like Steven Chu are in charge of our energy policy.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell, you can afford to spend more if you use public transit for everything, have no cars, and use something like ZipCars for those I-really-need-a-car moments.
I disagree. I'm a fiscal conservative but a social liberal. I have no problems with tax money providing a social safety net (and would prefer to see the US have Western Europe-style "social nets"). To steal from another Slashdotters signature, "I like taxes; they buy me civilization."
What I want is efficient spending. Get me the biggest bang for my buck.
Conversely, I *do not* want my tax money wasted. I've worked for the federal government through the DOE on an LHC detector. I've *seen* how the money is wasted (no, the LHC isn't a waste, I watched how a DOE lab's computing division burned money away because, heh, we've got it, might as well spend it even if we don't need it). To the point, I'm saying "Take my tax money", but please, use it as efficiently as possible.
Fiscal conservative = ruthless efficiency.
The top four things we spend money on are: Social Security, Medicare, Defense, and Medicaid. Which of those would you like to cut first? And where will you be hiding when the interests behind each one come after you?
Infographic (i.e., me doing your homework): http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html?src=tp
The EPA or USDOT should have a consumer-friendly guide like fueleconomy.gov for how much damage/costs generated are based on a vehicles weight. Between my wife and I, we own a Camry Hybrid, a Toyota Tundra pickup, and a Tesla Roadster, and we try to drive the pickup only when necessary (and when it must be used, I usually use an aluminum trailer to spread the load out).
So much this. CSX/Union Pacific are amazingly efficient when it comes to tons of freight moved per gallon of fuel. Trucks should only be used from rail distribution points/hubs to final destinations that have no rail access whatsoever.
As a resident of the Chicago suburbs, those pictures make me jealous of walkable, affordable city living.
Return the phone. You have 15 days from purchase date I believe. I'm at T-mobile customer with a Nexus One and I'll be looking to move to Sprint or Verizon after the T-Mobile purchase.
Which is a gamble to say the least. Why waste your margin/advertising budget on Groupon when you can spend it in more productive ways. And before you say "How do you know what is more productive?", I worked at Restaurant.com for a bit, and their business model is very close to GroupOn (but focused just on food service/dining). I've done my research.
There isn't a business in this world that has ever (seriously) complained about having too many customers.
Yes, there is. You want *profitable* customers. If you lose money on each customer, what are you going to do? Make it up on volume? (Insert "That's the joke" here)
I thought groupon was nuts not to take Google's offer, but this -- this is madness. They have a larger user base for sure, but their current business model does not support this valuation.
It'll be interesting to see what investors get burned by this. Facebook at least can keep trying to figure out how to monetize all it's users. Groupon? Anyone can do what they do. Your company only has value if only you can do what you do (copyright, patent, exclusive rights granted by the FDA, etc) or there is a high barrier to entry.
You're not poor until the debt comes due. And depending on the creditor, you simply walk away. Boom, clean balance sheet, as long as your assets aren't securing the debt.
Correct. It all depends on what equipment you have in theater. If all you have is a Global Hawk, you send it to provide information back to ground forces. If you have a Reaper, well, the problem is that much easier to solve.
I agree with your statements regarding paperwork, to an extent. I have yet to see the UN NOT drag it's feet when atrosicites are being committed against a country's own citizens, so I have very little to no respect for them. I'm also not a US military fanboy. I *do* believe we have an extremely sharp tooth that should be used when called for (Darfur, Libya, etc) but we should never do something like Iraq or Afghanistan in the future.
My research shows that a Tomahawk cruise missile costs $1.1-1.4 million. JDAMS cost between $35K and $75K. So, most of the cost depends on if you want to risk aircraft to save on the cost of the Tomahawks. But, as you said, you'd surpress anti-air forces to get air superiority, and at that point you rule the sky.
Bonus points if you can use triangulation from multiple people to feed back to Predator/Global Hawk drones that can be directed autonomously to the predicted location of the sniper/gunmen is. You'll still want an Air Force office confirming before firing, but you can automate the fark out of this.
Something else you might want to try is RainX. It's a hydrophobic silicone polymer that you can apply on the outside of the windshield to repel water. It works well enough that I also use it in our home on the glass shower doors to lengthen the time between us having to clean the inside of the shower.
You're not the target audience then. I own a Roadster, and have money down on the Model S, and I like what they're doing with it. That's what I want out of a ~$50K luxury sedan. If I wanted a bare bones Yaris, I'd go buy a Yaris.
Disagree. The ground war will be fought by the rebels (with weapons provided by Egypt, funded by the US government). The US will provide air cover remotely via drones and maybe larger equipment already there. As long as the US doesn't have to deal with a ground war, it'll be fine.
Depending on staging, they might use Predator/Reaper drones first, until the big stuff is in place.
I don't care what country you lead or who you are, as soon as you begin the murder of your country's civilians, any other country reserves the right to remove you from power by force.
As a US citizen, I very much hope aircraft are waiting on the ground for all the paperwork to go through and can get there quickly. Frankly, after Iraq and Afghanistan, I think we should just fark the paperwork after Gaddafi started murdering civilians, but heh, it's the US government.
I'd also be satisfied with cruise missiles taking out SAM sites and airfields, although thats quite a bit more expensive than B-52s carpet bombing those sites.
Of course, if the price of oil products are allowed to drop all the time preventing the development of alternative energy infrastructure, how are we ever supposed to be ready for $10/gallon gas? We wont. A price floor needs to be instituted, that gradually rises over time.
I did some quick Googling (beer+can+vs+bottle), and this popped up. I agree that more research is needed, I was just providing something I was told.
http://www.grapesandgrainsnyc.com/2009/03/29/the-great-can-vs-bottle-debate/
I was fortunate to meet Dale Katechis, the founder of Oskar Blues brewery a few years ago at Brewtopia. There in the midst of all these breweries and their countless bottles was a table filled with cans. Huh? It seemed so strange. Yet for Dale, it was a subtle war cry; a shot across the stern of the micro beer community. Dale’s Pale Ale was not just a great beer, but also a new philosophy: the Can is King. Backed by the belief in “less air, less light”, Dale was upbeat, passionate and grounded in his renegade ways. And the beer? Unbelievable. Featuring caramel toffee notes highlighted by fresh hops and an intoxicatingly smooth balance, it is delicious, and was deemed the Top Colorado Brewed Beer by the Rocky Mtn News in November, as well as the NY Times pick as the Best Pale Ale in America in 2005.
So fast-forward a few years, and cans are now popping up everywhere in the craft beer world. Breweries like Butternuts in upstate New York, New Belgium in Ft Collins, Colorado, and most recently Sly Fox from Pennsylvania, to name a few, have begun canning. They’re on the band wagon, and are espousing the advantages of the can: better protection from light and air, easier storage and transport, as well as a quicker cooling time for your tailgate fiestasSo what does that mean for us, the beer drinkers?
Well, frankly, better beer. Be it canned or bottled, brewers are testing and reinventing the ways we package our prized beverages. Concerned with the freshness of their beer, every detail is being scrutinized (and argued over). But honestly, bottles aren’t going away. The only thing that’s really changing? You’re going to find some damn tasty microbrews in cans. So embrace them, my friends. Embrace them without shame. The can will serve you well.
Actually, I was talking to a brewmaster at the Samuel Adams brewery two weeks ago (went on a tour), and he said cans are best because they shield the beer from the effects of sunlight (which are the biggest enemy of beer during transport/storage). Glass is used because people like glass bottles more than cans, hence why the glass bottles are as deep a brown as possible (to prevent as much sunlight from hitting the beer).
For soda though, I don't think it's going to matter much if light his the industrial cleaner (boric/phosphoric acid) used to flavor the drinks =)
I live 51.4 miles away from the Byron Nuclear Generating Station
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_Nuclear_Generating_Station.
I don't worry like I would if a coal plant was nearby, and if they were to offer hot water in addition to power, I'd buy both from them if I could get a piece of property close enough.
Sir, I'm not an industry apologist. I'm a scientific realist. There is a stark difference, and you better fucking learn it. I don't believe in useless things like religion, but these are days that I'm glad you're some shmuck on Slashdot and intelligent, reasonable people like Steven Chu are in charge of our energy policy.