I don't know why they paid as much as they did. I live out near Palm Springs, Ca. Out there you can find a HUGE wind farm. I took the tour back in college a few years ago. Back then, their 250ft mills cost about a million and a half each. They also said that most wind mills (in this area) pay themselves off in seven years and provide electricity at around 5-7 cents per kWh depending on wind conditions.
As I have come to understand it, Earth's gravity is not even strong enough to fully capture its own water vapor. It drifts off into the void. So, we loose water via bacteria, plants, lack of gravity... So, to address your question on how we still have any water left: it is right in the article -- water is abundant in the universe. When we have meteor showers or anything from the out-reaches of space falls to Earth, with it comes water. We seemingly have a nice equilibrium going where we gain about as much water as we loose.
This same issue was at hand with the fax machine. What it comes down to is simple: Do they have a right to attempt attracting customers? Yes. Do potential customers have the right to not be targeted? Yes. I believe the ruling has already been made: they can send it as long as you can request to not receive it. If they fail to provide a way by which you no longer receive their spam, then they are violating your rights.
While I think it is rather silly, one should not discount the use of smell. Marketing professionals have known for a long time that smell is the sense most correlated with memory http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro00/web2/Ito.html
Warm feet is easily taken care of. I remember watching something on Discovery about some guy who, in his garage, has made this gunk that, when cured, is an amaizing heat shield. To show it off, he made a "hat" out of it, and had his buddy hit it with a blowtorch for several minutes until the outside was glowing red. Roughly an inch thick, and the guy's head was just fine. For IronMan, there is a LOT more issues to be resolved, namely the power supply and aerodynamics.
An English Professor, talking to a Mathematics Professor, at length, describes with lofty words and colorful adjectives why God does not exist. In response, the Mathematician writes a complex formula on a chalk board and proclaims: Therefore, God exists. The English Professor could not retort. Moral of the story: I donno. Somehow I thought it fit, and now have forgotten why.
As a former investment advisor, there are many reasons why someone would invest in a failing company or a company that is near-death. The chief reason is to have a loss; it favorably affects your tax situation and can offset gains.
This reminds me of a little bit of history (you know, the part we don't want to be doomed to repeat?). To start off, here is a question: are military snipers valuable? The answer should come back as a resounding "Yes." To catch some people up on the history of this "weapon:" we have used snipers in all the major wars here in the US. Even during the revolution. However, for all the wars previous to Vietnam, we had to reinvent a sniper training program and hash it out from ol' timers and antiquated reference texts. Finally, post Vietnam, we realized that it would be more prudent to have a sniper program and continually train snipers and have them available in our arsenal at any time. I feel that the same could be true with advancements in military technology. It is better to keep a program open and have its use available than to have to recreate the program when its need arises again.
I am quite concerned for your outlook in regards to "but who struggle to make a living." What right have you to determine, in a free society, what is sufficient for another human to earn based upon their labors? Whether they make a meager living or an extravagant one, they have the right to sell their product and be paid for it. Your "right" to have things free and your way are infringing on their rights to prosperity. Only thing is, their right is protected by the constitution. If you are going to illegally infringe on one's copyright, there is no need to justify it to yourself that you are taking from the big guy or the little guy; you are still taking.
Bravo. You found two sentences out of nearly a thousand pages in an attempt to support your argument; however, I would hold that those verses say noting of freewill (just of God's plan). Alternatively, verses that support the concept of the ability to choose (read free agency or free will) is supported in the following verses: Deuteronomy 30:11, Deuteronomy 30:15, John 14:15, John 15:7, 1 Corinthians 9:24-25, 1 Timothy 6:12, 2 Timothy 2:21, 1 John 5:1. Despite what my reply may insinuate about my philosophical or religious stance, I fall under the category of agnostic. I just can help myself when I see blatant misuse of information in an attempt to skew an argument towards one's behalf. Please provide better "evidence" next time.;)
Whoa. I cannot belive I fell for that...twice I think. Now I know, and knowing is half the battle.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Oh, for shame.
Well, while the mountains are vastly larger, your comparisons are misguided. The red spot? Wrong planet. Your think Jupiter. Big Earth-quake? Can't hit 80. The scale only goes to 10. Anything worse than a 10 is still a 10. At any rate, would that not be called a Mars-quake?
Wait a second! Wait one gosh darn, cotton pickin' second. I have a question: This may be ignorance speaking, so I hope someone can shed some light on the subject. If you check out the image of Earth and our Moon, why do we not see stars? Where did they go?
One quick note:
Middleman != (Bad || Inefficient);
Or rather, does not, inherently, equal...
If a middleman is providing a service of value or in any way adding value to the purchase, then he could be worth the extra cost or extra savings. The extra cost comes about sometimes due to extra services that some find valuable. However, the main point that I would like to point out is that the reason why the middleman first became prevalent is the EXTRA SAVINGS due to being more efficient at distributing than a manufacturer.
Example: if I want to buy Cliff Bars (an energy bar that I enjoy), I could buy directly from the manufacturer at around, if I remember right, a buck twenty five a bar. However, if I go through someone, a middleman, who buys in tremendous bulk, he gets a discount that he can pass to me. If I buy the same bar at Trader Joes, I get it for under a buck. So, it is a false doctrine that middlemen are inherently bad or inefficient.
While I think the sales tax is likely justified, though I am not one for increased taxes in any form. There are plenty of bloated and obscure programs that are not reasonable for everyone to be paying for via taxes. By eliminating some or many of these programs, funds could be reallocated and tax burdens can stay level or decrease. However, I am more interested in the idea that DogDude has an elementary argument on its face. Make Net businesses compete on the same level as their brick-and-mortar counterparts? There are inherent differences between the two models that make direct comparison and "competing on the same level" unrealistic. Firstly, and most notably, brick-and-mortar tend to have higher fixed costs (i.e., higher lease space, higher employee costs, higher utilities costs, etc). Taxing Net businesses does not level any kind of playing field. Net items tend to be less expensive due to lower operating costs, not just because they are taxed less.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know why they paid as much as they did. I live out near Palm Springs, Ca. Out there you can find a HUGE wind farm. I took the tour back in college a few years ago. Back then, their 250ft mills cost about a million and a half each. They also said that most wind mills (in this area) pay themselves off in seven years and provide electricity at around 5-7 cents per kWh depending on wind conditions.
It was nice for the gasoline prices back then; it will be good for laptop prices now (at least, the mini-notebook prices).
As I have come to understand it, Earth's gravity is not even strong enough to fully capture its own water vapor. It drifts off into the void. So, we loose water via bacteria, plants, lack of gravity... So, to address your question on how we still have any water left: it is right in the article -- water is abundant in the universe. When we have meteor showers or anything from the out-reaches of space falls to Earth, with it comes water. We seemingly have a nice equilibrium going where we gain about as much water as we loose.
This same issue was at hand with the fax machine. What it comes down to is simple: Do they have a right to attempt attracting customers? Yes. Do potential customers have the right to not be targeted? Yes. I believe the ruling has already been made: they can send it as long as you can request to not receive it. If they fail to provide a way by which you no longer receive their spam, then they are violating your rights.
Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spammity Spam!
Good Jeeaaooooorrrrrrb!
While I think it is rather silly, one should not discount the use of smell. Marketing professionals have known for a long time that smell is the sense most correlated with memory http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro00/web2/Ito.html
Warm feet is easily taken care of. I remember watching something on Discovery about some guy who, in his garage, has made this gunk that, when cured, is an amaizing heat shield. To show it off, he made a "hat" out of it, and had his buddy hit it with a blowtorch for several minutes until the outside was glowing red. Roughly an inch thick, and the guy's head was just fine. For IronMan, there is a LOT more issues to be resolved, namely the power supply and aerodynamics.
An English Professor, talking to a Mathematics Professor, at length, describes with lofty words and colorful adjectives why God does not exist. In response, the Mathematician writes a complex formula on a chalk board and proclaims: Therefore, God exists. The English Professor could not retort. Moral of the story: I donno. Somehow I thought it fit, and now have forgotten why.
My first thought: Oh, my....has /. been....../.ed?
As a former investment advisor, there are many reasons why someone would invest in a failing company or a company that is near-death. The chief reason is to have a loss; it favorably affects your tax situation and can offset gains.
This reminds me of a little bit of history (you know, the part we don't want to be doomed to repeat?). To start off, here is a question: are military snipers valuable? The answer should come back as a resounding "Yes." To catch some people up on the history of this "weapon:" we have used snipers in all the major wars here in the US. Even during the revolution. However, for all the wars previous to Vietnam, we had to reinvent a sniper training program and hash it out from ol' timers and antiquated reference texts. Finally, post Vietnam, we realized that it would be more prudent to have a sniper program and continually train snipers and have them available in our arsenal at any time. I feel that the same could be true with advancements in military technology. It is better to keep a program open and have its use available than to have to recreate the program when its need arises again.
I am quite concerned for your outlook in regards to "but who struggle to make a living." What right have you to determine, in a free society, what is sufficient for another human to earn based upon their labors? Whether they make a meager living or an extravagant one, they have the right to sell their product and be paid for it. Your "right" to have things free and your way are infringing on their rights to prosperity. Only thing is, their right is protected by the constitution. If you are going to illegally infringe on one's copyright, there is no need to justify it to yourself that you are taking from the big guy or the little guy; you are still taking.
Bravo. You found two sentences out of nearly a thousand pages in an attempt to support your argument; however, I would hold that those verses say noting of freewill (just of God's plan). Alternatively, verses that support the concept of the ability to choose (read free agency or free will) is supported in the following verses: Deuteronomy 30:11, Deuteronomy 30:15, John 14:15, John 15:7, 1 Corinthians 9:24-25, 1 Timothy 6:12, 2 Timothy 2:21, 1 John 5:1. Despite what my reply may insinuate about my philosophical or religious stance, I fall under the category of agnostic. I just can help myself when I see blatant misuse of information in an attempt to skew an argument towards one's behalf. Please provide better "evidence" next time. ;)
Sooooo.... Can you fire a laser, capture the ensuing lightning, use that energy to re-power the laser (with some energy to spare), repeat?
Whoa. I cannot belive I fell for that...twice I think. Now I know, and knowing is half the battle. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Oh, for shame.
Well, while the mountains are vastly larger, your comparisons are misguided. The red spot? Wrong planet. Your think Jupiter. Big Earth-quake? Can't hit 80. The scale only goes to 10. Anything worse than a 10 is still a 10. At any rate, would that not be called a Mars-quake?
Wait a second! Wait one gosh darn, cotton pickin' second. I have a question: This may be ignorance speaking, so I hope someone can shed some light on the subject. If you check out the image of Earth and our Moon, why do we not see stars? Where did they go?
One quick note: Middleman != (Bad || Inefficient); Or rather, does not, inherently, equal... If a middleman is providing a service of value or in any way adding value to the purchase, then he could be worth the extra cost or extra savings. The extra cost comes about sometimes due to extra services that some find valuable. However, the main point that I would like to point out is that the reason why the middleman first became prevalent is the EXTRA SAVINGS due to being more efficient at distributing than a manufacturer. Example: if I want to buy Cliff Bars (an energy bar that I enjoy), I could buy directly from the manufacturer at around, if I remember right, a buck twenty five a bar. However, if I go through someone, a middleman, who buys in tremendous bulk, he gets a discount that he can pass to me. If I buy the same bar at Trader Joes, I get it for under a buck. So, it is a false doctrine that middlemen are inherently bad or inefficient.
While I think the sales tax is likely justified, though I am not one for increased taxes in any form. There are plenty of bloated and obscure programs that are not reasonable for everyone to be paying for via taxes. By eliminating some or many of these programs, funds could be reallocated and tax burdens can stay level or decrease. However, I am more interested in the idea that DogDude has an elementary argument on its face. Make Net businesses compete on the same level as their brick-and-mortar counterparts? There are inherent differences between the two models that make direct comparison and "competing on the same level" unrealistic. Firstly, and most notably, brick-and-mortar tend to have higher fixed costs (i.e., higher lease space, higher employee costs, higher utilities costs, etc). Taxing Net businesses does not level any kind of playing field. Net items tend to be less expensive due to lower operating costs, not just because they are taxed less.