You make a very good point in that the resources are finite. Eventually they run out and then we're screwed. But I don't think solar and wind are the long term solutions they've been made out to be. Solar and wind are both expensive to implement and maintain. They also require finite resources for the construction and maintenance. The only reason we are seeing so much growth in those areas are because of the massive subsidies coming from the government. What happens when consumers are forced to pay the whole cost and it's no longer being subsidized? Hope you like sitting in the dark.
The other problem with both is that they don't provide as much power as other renewables like hydro. Even hydro has it's problems like decreased flow in the waterways, fish destruction, and it still needs maintenance. But wind is so much worse when it comes to the cost:energy equation. I'm looking at a hydro unit that's putting out over 70 MW right now, while the sum of all 5 of our wind farms are adding up to 30-40. We could maintain that one generator for 20 years for what it costs us to maintain a windfarm for one. Furthermore, when the wind dies down you still need to replace the generation from spinning reserves somewhere. Solar's great in the daytime, but what about at night, when it's raining, or we have cloud cover? In combination with other things that provide static generation like coal, gas, or nuke they help to conserve those finite resources, but solar and wind are never going to be able to stand by themselves. When those other resources run out we're still in the same position as we would be if they ran out today.
From a purely economic standpoint it makes sense to use the resources in the middle east before our own. Is it the nice, and neighborly thing to do? No, but then how are we viewed by the rest of the world? Most of the rest of the world hates us anyway, and would just as soon throw us under the nearest oncoming bus. Even when we try to help it's perceived as interference, warmongering, and dominance. When it comes down to my children starving in the street or theirs, it's not a tough decision for me.
I'm going to go ahead and call BS. What about Delicate Sound Of Thunder? Or for that matter any time they've played live? Do they play each album as a whole, or selections from each? It's nice to see EMI slapped about, as they surely deserve it, but let's please dispense with the idea that this is all about retaining each album as a whole unit.
Hehehehe, nice!!! I've used Jack for some time with fedora for quite some time, and it works well. I'm not sure that it's all that complicated as long as one knows how to read.
Just because it's new now doesn't mean it will be later. The underlying issue remains the same. Nuclear power is a heck of a lot safer than it used to be, but we still don't want it leaking into our ground water. We also don't want corporations lying to us saying everything is fine when it's not. This company needs to be strung up and beaten severely.
Mod parent up. It's a very good point, and we have had the same problem here in the US with welfare. It's all well and good to give someone a hand and get them back on the feet, but when you care for them cradle to grave dictating every aspect of their lives I'd say that's more like slavery. Not saying that's what's happening in Haiti now but it could wind up that way if we don't establish a timeline and involve the locals in rebuilding their country.
That's a silly question considering the statement that you followed it with. Don't know if you are aware or not, but there has been talk by the present administration of taking that deduction away (ironically to pay for universal health care). The other thing is that your health care expenses including premiums need to exceed a certain percentage of your income. I did not qualify for the deduction and I had over $6000 in medical expenses last year, and make under 100k anually for a household of 4. So meeting the requirement is not all that trivial. I'm not convinced that sticking with the corporate world and voting republican is the answer (I might be persuaded to say hard line conservative), but I can tell you that what's been tried so far sucks mightily. For the record I'm not in favor of the government taking over health care, but I do think we could institute some sensible legislation that might solve some of the problem. Do away with the pre-existing condition clause, cap law suits, do away with malpractice insurance, and create a malpractice 3 strikes and you're out policy. But of course Obama isn't going to do any of those things because they would actually reduce costs by taking it away from the lawyers.
Yeah, they do that with cars too. My truck was stolen, and the yard gets it at 9AM. They don't call me until 4:55 PM to tell me they've got it, but they close at 5. Then charged me for 3 extra days of storage over a holiday weekend. There isn't much distinction between the criminals and the "good guys" sometimes.
Well yes, but that's because it's a crappy song to start with. You take something with a little more substance like all of the pre 80s Moody Blues, or Jars of Clay - Who We Are Instead / Good Monsters / Much Afraid. That right there is timeless and just flat out doesn't get old. I could cite several more examples, but if you've heard the albums I'm talking about you probably get the point. For all of the pomp and overachivement that marked Queen's music it never really got much below the surface of selling records. Slick production and much marketing hype does not a good album make. I see a lot of what is being put out today in the same way. I'm all for innovation, but the electronica just doesn't do much for me. I find it cold, lifeless, and without depth or meaning. It's not that no one is making good music it's just that marketing is what determines what is popular rather than what's good.
Actually America needs to start treating the taxes they already get like it's their own money instead of someone elses. Then they might not have to be constantly looking around for where they can squeeze more from. Honestly, with the way the current administration is spending I don't see how we are going to survive as a country. I'm all for paying what's due, but it's gotten so ridiculous that we'll soon be handing over our paychecks to uncle sam, and letting him care for us. If you think that's a good thing, try living on welfare, visit a DMV sometime, try to replace a lost birth certificate when you're adopted, etc. The government currently can't find its ass with both hands, and it was never able too before. What makes you think giving them more of our money is a wise investment?
Yes so long as efficiency isn't your primary objective. I worked on a scrum team a while back and it seems to me that daily meetings to discuss what everyone did yesterday is about as efficient as one person doing all the work themselves. Scrum doesn't really measure the overall contribution of any one team member. It's more for management to stay apprised of the progress on the project. When you have the guy that does the code bugging the guy from QA to look at his code all day and helping him write it Scrum doesn't really identify the guy that isn't able to do jack on his own.
Yes I do disagree with all of her statements, and Isreal is not the US. They don't have same freedom of speech laws. If you don't like it, stay home.
Self-declared??? Yeah, right. Maybe if you ignore the fact that they are recognized by the majority of the civilized world. Moronic Iranian dictators aside. I don't know of any other group of people who has been more heavily persecuted, and yet we still hear idiotic statements like "a purely racist self-declared state of Israel". Guess everyone has a right to live in peace except for them huh?
I'd rather they just stopped being assholes on their own. We currently have the tools to do that without any help from the government. What is the cost associated with yet another government program that could easily be mitigated by the free market? If everyone got together and said, "hey look, we're not going to purchase products from companies that make loud commercials." I think you'd see the problem evaporate rapidly. With the Internet it's very plausible to bring attention to things that suck and form a grassroots effort. The problem is that people put up with it, and support the companies that do things they don't like. So many problems could be solved if we would just stop being apathetic and let the free market do it's thing. It works quite well if you don't interfere with it by supporting bad behavior.
I see the benefit in having your records readily available, but with security being what it is I'm not sure it's worth it. If we were to do that I don't think medical records should be transfered over the Internet. It should be a closed system with hard links between locations, and never connected to the Internet. I might be alright with it then.
A system is only as good as its design. I've seen many cases where an outside company is called in to put in a system. With no knowledge of the workflow, or processes in place at the organization they have a billion meetings trying to discover what they need to know to build a quality system. None of the stakeholders can agree on what should be done, so there is compromise every step of the way. When the organization finally gets their system they hate it because it doesn't do what they need and what it does do is not efficient. Yes it's cheaper to have an outside company come in and build it, but in the end you always get what you paid for. I suspect it's no different in the medical industry. If you want a quality complex system it takes years of dedicated development, and an in depth knowledge of the internal workings of the company. You can't hire a team of monkeys to come in and stick a bunch of building blocks together.
No that's not a troll, it's a very good point, and I happen to agree. If paying NewsCorp to delist from Google isn't illegal it sure should be. Standard users of Google should be able to get their search results without having to worry about this type of nonsense. It doesn't really impact me, I know how to type in www.foxnews.com, however, unsuspecting users of google are probably going to be pretty ticked off when they discover their results have been manipulated for a financial / market share play.
They seem to be pretty good at spending gobs of money that should belong to our grandchildren. They also seem to be fairly adept at hookwinking the general populace judging by the current administration, and what passes for a good idea now days. But what do I know?
Well that would be fine if it were an option durring the install, but to make it default behavior seems like a bad idea. I think it's great to give users that choice, but it shouldn't be by default and there should be a flashing warning surrounding the option. We already have enough infected systems on the net, why make it easier?
Security isn't accomplished by silence. The bad guys have known about this for a long time. Kind of hard for average people to protect themselves when the risk isn't made public. At the end of the day not much has changed. If you want a computer that is secure unplug it and lock it in a vault. Otherwise, expect that everyone on the Internet can see the information you keep on it.
Slashdot Mirror
You make a very good point in that the resources are finite. Eventually they run out and then we're screwed. But I don't think solar and wind are the long term solutions they've been made out to be. Solar and wind are both expensive to implement and maintain. They also require finite resources for the construction and maintenance. The only reason we are seeing so much growth in those areas are because of the massive subsidies coming from the government. What happens when consumers are forced to pay the whole cost and it's no longer being subsidized? Hope you like sitting in the dark.
The other problem with both is that they don't provide as much power as other renewables like hydro. Even hydro has it's problems like decreased flow in the waterways, fish destruction, and it still needs maintenance. But wind is so much worse when it comes to the cost:energy equation. I'm looking at a hydro unit that's putting out over 70 MW right now, while the sum of all 5 of our wind farms are adding up to 30-40. We could maintain that one generator for 20 years for what it costs us to maintain a windfarm for one. Furthermore, when the wind dies down you still need to replace the generation from spinning reserves somewhere. Solar's great in the daytime, but what about at night, when it's raining, or we have cloud cover? In combination with other things that provide static generation like coal, gas, or nuke they help to conserve those finite resources, but solar and wind are never going to be able to stand by themselves. When those other resources run out we're still in the same position as we would be if they ran out today.
From a purely economic standpoint it makes sense to use the resources in the middle east before our own. Is it the nice, and neighborly thing to do? No, but then how are we viewed by the rest of the world? Most of the rest of the world hates us anyway, and would just as soon throw us under the nearest oncoming bus. Even when we try to help it's perceived as interference, warmongering, and dominance. When it comes down to my children starving in the street or theirs, it's not a tough decision for me.
I'm going to go ahead and call BS. What about Delicate Sound Of Thunder? Or for that matter any time they've played live? Do they play each album as a whole, or selections from each? It's nice to see EMI slapped about, as they surely deserve it, but let's please dispense with the idea that this is all about retaining each album as a whole unit.
Maybe his boss sent him to the basement to get rid of the roaches. Could've been worse. He could've blown the place up.
I have it posted in my cube, so why post it here?
Hehehehe, nice!!! I've used Jack for some time with fedora for quite some time, and it works well. I'm not sure that it's all that complicated as long as one knows how to read.
Just because it's new now doesn't mean it will be later. The underlying issue remains the same. Nuclear power is a heck of a lot safer than it used to be, but we still don't want it leaking into our ground water. We also don't want corporations lying to us saying everything is fine when it's not. This company needs to be strung up and beaten severely.
Mod parent up. It's a very good point, and we have had the same problem here in the US with welfare. It's all well and good to give someone a hand and get them back on the feet, but when you care for them cradle to grave dictating every aspect of their lives I'd say that's more like slavery. Not saying that's what's happening in Haiti now but it could wind up that way if we don't establish a timeline and involve the locals in rebuilding their country.
That's a silly question considering the statement that you followed it with. Don't know if you are aware or not, but there has been talk by the present administration of taking that deduction away (ironically to pay for universal health care). The other thing is that your health care expenses including premiums need to exceed a certain percentage of your income. I did not qualify for the deduction and I had over $6000 in medical expenses last year, and make under 100k anually for a household of 4. So meeting the requirement is not all that trivial. I'm not convinced that sticking with the corporate world and voting republican is the answer (I might be persuaded to say hard line conservative), but I can tell you that what's been tried so far sucks mightily. For the record I'm not in favor of the government taking over health care, but I do think we could institute some sensible legislation that might solve some of the problem. Do away with the pre-existing condition clause, cap law suits, do away with malpractice insurance, and create a malpractice 3 strikes and you're out policy. But of course Obama isn't going to do any of those things because they would actually reduce costs by taking it away from the lawyers.
Or WD-40 thereby validating the first post.
Yeah, they do that with cars too. My truck was stolen, and the yard gets it at 9AM. They don't call me until 4:55 PM to tell me they've got it, but they close at 5. Then charged me for 3 extra days of storage over a holiday weekend. There isn't much distinction between the criminals and the "good guys" sometimes.
Well yes, but that's because it's a crappy song to start with. You take something with a little more substance like all of the pre 80s Moody Blues, or Jars of Clay - Who We Are Instead / Good Monsters / Much Afraid. That right there is timeless and just flat out doesn't get old. I could cite several more examples, but if you've heard the albums I'm talking about you probably get the point. For all of the pomp and overachivement that marked Queen's music it never really got much below the surface of selling records. Slick production and much marketing hype does not a good album make. I see a lot of what is being put out today in the same way. I'm all for innovation, but the electronica just doesn't do much for me. I find it cold, lifeless, and without depth or meaning. It's not that no one is making good music it's just that marketing is what determines what is popular rather than what's good.
Actually America needs to start treating the taxes they already get like it's their own money instead of someone elses. Then they might not have to be constantly looking around for where they can squeeze more from. Honestly, with the way the current administration is spending I don't see how we are going to survive as a country. I'm all for paying what's due, but it's gotten so ridiculous that we'll soon be handing over our paychecks to uncle sam, and letting him care for us. If you think that's a good thing, try living on welfare, visit a DMV sometime, try to replace a lost birth certificate when you're adopted, etc. The government currently can't find its ass with both hands, and it was never able too before. What makes you think giving them more of our money is a wise investment?
Yes so long as efficiency isn't your primary objective. I worked on a scrum team a while back and it seems to me that daily meetings to discuss what everyone did yesterday is about as efficient as one person doing all the work themselves. Scrum doesn't really measure the overall contribution of any one team member. It's more for management to stay apprised of the progress on the project. When you have the guy that does the code bugging the guy from QA to look at his code all day and helping him write it Scrum doesn't really identify the guy that isn't able to do jack on his own.
That may yet prove to be a bad idea. Particularly for Isreal.
Yes I do disagree with all of her statements, and Isreal is not the US. They don't have same freedom of speech laws. If you don't like it, stay home.
Self-declared??? Yeah, right. Maybe if you ignore the fact that they are recognized by the majority of the civilized world. Moronic Iranian dictators aside. I don't know of any other group of people who has been more heavily persecuted, and yet we still hear idiotic statements like "a purely racist self-declared state of Israel". Guess everyone has a right to live in peace except for them huh?
Sorry I'm lost. How did you come to that astute conclusion?
That's the funniest thing I've read in a while, thanks!!
I'd rather they just stopped being assholes on their own. We currently have the tools to do that without any help from the government. What is the cost associated with yet another government program that could easily be mitigated by the free market? If everyone got together and said, "hey look, we're not going to purchase products from companies that make loud commercials." I think you'd see the problem evaporate rapidly. With the Internet it's very plausible to bring attention to things that suck and form a grassroots effort. The problem is that people put up with it, and support the companies that do things they don't like. So many problems could be solved if we would just stop being apathetic and let the free market do it's thing. It works quite well if you don't interfere with it by supporting bad behavior.
What is even more humorous is that this was modded interesting.
You could take it to the firing range.
I see the benefit in having your records readily available, but with security being what it is I'm not sure it's worth it. If we were to do that I don't think medical records should be transfered over the Internet. It should be a closed system with hard links between locations, and never connected to the Internet. I might be alright with it then.
A system is only as good as its design. I've seen many cases where an outside company is called in to put in a system. With no knowledge of the workflow, or processes in place at the organization they have a billion meetings trying to discover what they need to know to build a quality system. None of the stakeholders can agree on what should be done, so there is compromise every step of the way. When the organization finally gets their system they hate it because it doesn't do what they need and what it does do is not efficient. Yes it's cheaper to have an outside company come in and build it, but in the end you always get what you paid for. I suspect it's no different in the medical industry. If you want a quality complex system it takes years of dedicated development, and an in depth knowledge of the internal workings of the company. You can't hire a team of monkeys to come in and stick a bunch of building blocks together.
No that's not a troll, it's a very good point, and I happen to agree. If paying NewsCorp to delist from Google isn't illegal it sure should be. Standard users of Google should be able to get their search results without having to worry about this type of nonsense. It doesn't really impact me, I know how to type in www.foxnews.com, however, unsuspecting users of google are probably going to be pretty ticked off when they discover their results have been manipulated for a financial / market share play.
They seem to be pretty good at spending gobs of money that should belong to our grandchildren. They also seem to be fairly adept at hookwinking the general populace judging by the current administration, and what passes for a good idea now days. But what do I know?
Well that would be fine if it were an option durring the install, but to make it default behavior seems like a bad idea. I think it's great to give users that choice, but it shouldn't be by default and there should be a flashing warning surrounding the option. We already have enough infected systems on the net, why make it easier?
Security isn't accomplished by silence. The bad guys have known about this for a long time. Kind of hard for average people to protect themselves when the risk isn't made public. At the end of the day not much has changed. If you want a computer that is secure unplug it and lock it in a vault. Otherwise, expect that everyone on the Internet can see the information you keep on it.