Comment Indeed... (Score 1) 226
What's with all the "mulling"?
What's with all the "mulling"?
They are not designed with power efficiency in mind. They are designed to be functional, fashionable and cheap to produce.
So, though the same setup could be designed with more power-efficient components or solutions...
Why bother about a Watt or two or twenty lost on standby on a product that uses hundreds or thousands of Watts when working, right?
http://standby.lbl.gov/summary...
I think that my favorite on that list is the gas range that uses on average 1.13 Watts per hour on standby.
GAS range. As in... it doesn't run on electricity.
That's about 6-15 kilowatts wasted every year, per household.
Just so one could light the highly flammable gas with a press of a button instead of with a match or one of those piezoelectric gas lighters.
The proper verdict would have been to destroy both the KP partners and Pao as they all horrible human beings.
...
The partner (?)...
...
given to a loser...
...
Indian sleazebag...
...
an utter whore and slut...
...
All I can say is, "Kill them with fire. All of them."
As for this part:
1. The partner (?) who did not want to invite the women in the company to a getaway with Al Gore because it would "kill the buzz." The buzz would be killed because the excluded party were women, not because they were unpleasant people.
http://recode.net/2015/02/25/a...
And about that Al Gore dinner, Chien said that only 10 people could fit in the former vice president's living room, and only three of them were affiliated with Kleiner Perkins. Pao herself had actually suggested some invitees who were male: The CEOs of Yelp and Dropbox.
Chien insisted he'd never said anything about women killing the buzz. "Absolutely not," he said. Pao's filing was "the first time I had ever heard of the phrase."
And about the all-guy ski trip? Chien said he'd actually invited fellow Kleiner colleague Mary Meeker, but she couldn't make it. And besides, she has her own house in the area, he said.
...
Could Path founder Dave Morin invite a female entrepreneur from a Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers portfolio company on the firm's 2012 ski trip to Colorado, organized by then senior partner Chi-Hua Chien?
He could not, Chien said. As he explained in an email at the time, "The issue is that we are staying in condos, and I was thinking that gents wouldn't mind sharing, but gals might. Why don't we punt on her and find 2 guys who are awesome. We can add 4-8 women next year."
There were no women on the 2012 ski trip, and there would be no ski trip the next year.
More from TFS:
Logistically friendly and easy to build
Better Shelter will arrive in two cardboard boxes which are packed in subsequent building order.
The two boxes can be individually lifted by four people and contain an assembly instruction image manual, which lets you assemble the shelter, together with three other people in 4-8 hours.
Better Shelter is built in three sub-sequential steps:
Foundation
Roof with ventilation and solar panel
Walls with windows and door
Better Shelter is optimized to meet the high volume production condiÂtions and flat pack logistic demands required to be cost efficient.
...how will this reflect on her husband's Ponzi scheme lawsuits.
Those $16 million would have probably come in handy.
At least he reads the articles...
Because dads don't hate their own offspring?
Or do like we have hear, where leave is paid for out of a fund that all taxpayers contribute to, so nobody is penalized for taking it, and the employer doesn't pay it.
After all, people don't have to have babies.
Countries on the other hand need a fresh supply of people - i.e. babies.
But that whole discussion above (as dictated by the OP who borderline blames women for getting knocked up) ignores the real issue with the whole baby producing thing.
That it is not something that can be permanently delayed or even planned 100% (and let's not even go into twins and triplets issues... or possible health issues), requiring from a woman to be absent from work during her most productive years - and to suffer from a reintegration gap once back at work.
And higher up the ladder the job goes, the more it shows. Particularly at promotion time.
Go away for half a year, return to find that your colleague with whom you shared a desk is now your boss.
Or that he simply has half a year of experience more, while you feel like a new recruit.
Or that you no longer know anyone in your division as everyone moved on, or up - or that the whole division got restructured while you were away.
On top of that, prolonged absences from "the grind", particularly coupled with significant changes in life, can and DO change the way one looks at their old workplace.
I got drafted two years into my first job, went away for 9 months.
But even though my employer even pulled some strings to get me out on one occasion for couple of days cause they needed someone to do the job... I still returned to a company staffed with many different faces and a new boss.
None of which was an issue - we used to have seasonal hirings so you get used to company blowing up then shrinking down, people coming and going, and my new boss was my old division boss who took over for our old boss... who incidentally just had a baby, and after her maternity leave went off to another company.
But you do get a different perspective... and you start noticing complaints other people make about things you took for granted. And so you start looking around. Or you get an offer.
And so you jump ship and start over elsewhere.
As a single, young, unattached male, switching to another company and a similar job was simple.
Sacrificed my vacation time in the process though.
Which was NOT fun after previously losing vacation time on account of being drafted, coming back to work, changing jobs and then working for another year to accumulate vacation time again...
Still... no biggie.
But had I had a baby at home... and maybe no one to take care of it while I worked...
There ARE elements of the whole "baby issue" and its effect on the career path of a woman that can't just be covered by monetary compensation (but it DOES help - a lot), NOR can the men experience all those effects even with paternity leave and shared responsibilities.
But even so - it is still the best strategy NOT to have babies, for both men and women.
Which is a form of discrimination of its own - against those who have to work for a living.
Me neither.
The new solution is still sexist.
It's just that this is the kind of sexism that is culturally acceptable at the moment.
A situation where one person can get a job based on a genetic flip of a coin, followed by a genetic role of the dice that lands one with a fashionable appearance - while others are disregarded based on the genetic flip of the coin alone.
You know... When sex of the person is a disqualifying trait on a job application - and it is not a job opening in a strip-bar.
It's the same exact thing that makes "housewife" an acceptable "career choice" for a woman, while the same "career" choice for a man doesn't even have a noun of its own.
It is instead described with pejorative terms ranging from "henpecked" and "timid" to "pussywhipped".
It's culturally acceptable sexism.
No different than a burka - for women who consider that a part of their culture.
So the KKK can force a black or Jewish printer to print posters for their next rally, then?
If you answer no, you agree with the govenrnor of Indianapolis. If you answer yes, you're in favour of slavery (forcing the printer to serve against their will). Pick one.
Any business can reject customers already.
So, that imaginary Jewish printer can reject that imaginary KKK customer - RIGHT NOW.
It is their right as a business - not accepting to do a job they don't want.
What that imaginary Jewish printer can't do at this point, is pull a "religious discrimination/freedom" card should KKK complain about being discriminated for being KKK.
And as that is SO gonna happen - both that false dichotomy of yours AND that strawman... they kinda stink.
Back in the real world, this law is a license for being a dick to ANYONE (not just customers).
And should they complain one can just pull a religious script out of one's ass, with a highlighted passage which vaguely kinda gives one an excuse for being a dick.
Because religion.
At which point government (i.e. police and courts) just shrug their shoulders and go "What can we do? Religion." and may end up paying damages to the "person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened" - i.e. the penis in fabula.
But since you like the idea of Semitic examples so much...
This law allows your Muslim neighbor to call to prayer 5 times a day as loud as possible, or to perform any other religious ceremony including but not limited to slaughtering live cows, goats and sheep in their driveway or on their balcony.
And you have no one to complain to anymore.
Your boss can fire you on "religious grounds", you can get evicted for the same reason, your bank account can be charged "additional services" on account of you being a filthy unbeliever...
And boy are your female members of the family in for a surprise when they start getting pestered by men unless they are wearing a burka and are in a company of another man.
Ain't no such thing as sexual harassment in the "holy books" - but there's plenty rules on how women should act in public and at home.
Also, how long until Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses figure out that they can just camp in front of your door 24/7 cause you can't call cops on them anymore?
Experts reviewing the assessment conclude that there is no evidence for increased alarm.
http://www.sciencemediacentre....
Dr Oliver Jones, Senior Lecturer in Analytical Chemistry at RMIT University in Melbourne, said:
"The study itself says that for all compounds, the evidence of human carcinogenicity was limited or considered inadequate."
...
"People might be interested to know that there are over 70 other things IARC also classifies as 'probably carcinogenic', including night shifts."
...
"While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence this does seem to me to be a precautionary rather than a reactionary change."
Prof Alan Boobis, Professor of Biochemical Pharmacology at Imperial College London, said:
"The UK Committee on Carcinogenicity has evaluated possible links between pesticide exposure and cancer on several occasions. It has found little evidence for such a link. At most, the evidence was inconsistent and was considered insufficient to call for regulatory action.
"These conclusions of IARC are important and should be taken into account when evaluating these pesticides, but that must also take into account how the pesticides are used in the real world. In my view this report is not a cause for undue alarm."
Prof Sir Colin Berry, Emeritus Professor of Pathology at Queen Mary University of London, said:
"The weight of evidence is against carcinogenicity"
...
"This assessment has looked at a group of 43 diseases lumped into one category, multiple pesticides with very different chemistry, and has failed to include critical data. There is nothing here to suggest that the variety of genetic changes in these diseases could be caused by these pesticides. This appears to be a rather selective review."
Prof David Coggon, Professor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the University of Southampton, said:
"Thus, when evaluating the epidemiological evidence, one is looking for a consistent pattern of increased risk for one or more tumour types, which is unlikely to be explained by biases (often unavoidable) in the study methods. It is clear from the summary table in the Lancet report that clear and consistent evidence of this type was not found for any of the pesticides that were considered"
...
"In contrast, studies in laboratory animals were judged to show clear evidence of carcinogenicity for four of the five compounds."
...
"The IARC report does not raise immediate alarms. However, I would expect regulatory authorities around the world to take note of this new evaluation, and to consider whether it indicates a need to review their risk assessments for any of the pesticides that they currently approve."
Prof Tony Dayan, Emeritus Toxicologist, said:
"In the present report the classification of glyphosate and malathion as carrying a Class IIA risk of causing cancer in humans reflects a variety of laboratory results with a small number of studies in man of varied quality and mixed conclusions. Detailed analysis of the nature and quality of the evidence overall does not support such a high level classification, which at the most should be Class IIB."
ONE expert made a very short remark saying that "study says glyphosate carcinogenic now" so gardeners should be careful when using pesticides.
Prof Andreas Kortenkamp, Professor in Human Toxicology at Brunel University London, said:
"IARC have carefully assessed new evidence about the cancer hazards of pesticides, and have now classified 5 pesticides as either 'probably' or 'possibly' carcinogenic to humans. The authorities in the EU must now consider whether existing measures are sufficient to protect consumers and pesticide applicators from cancer risks. This will be particularly important for the widely used weedkiller glyphosate, now classified as probably carcinogenic to humans. Home gardeners especially should exercise the utmost care when they use weedkillers that contain glyphosate."
Aaaand... that's it.
Teacup, meet tempest.
From the one who aren't interested, of course.
If you were forced by law to rub shit all over yourself once every four years - how many times would you have done it before looking into differences between types of shit you can rub into your skin?
Or would you just go "Aaaah... it's all the same shit."
But is it?
Dog shit, elephant shit, shit harvested from hospitals, shit from prisons, baby shit, your own shit, your girlfriend's/wife's shit, shit of some Playboy bunny...
Claiming that mandatory voting will get money out of politics is one of the stupidest things anyone has said.
From the summary:
It would be transformative if everybody voted - that would counteract money more than anything," he said, adding it was the first time he had shared the idea publicly.
He didn't say "get money out". He's not stupid. He said "counteract money".
Reduce influence of money by making it more expensive to control a significant number of votes by money and harder to achieve results against the simple will of the people.
In any case, mandatory voting is a bad idea no matter how many other countries do it. It is someone's right not to vote just as much as it is to vote, and encouraging people who otherwise have no interest in the process to vote is a mistake. Voting for voting's sake is a travesty of the process.
In other words - exercising one's freedom to take part in the process of maintaining or divesting of ALL freedoms is a travesty - because people should not be forced to use their freedom OR to be free.
Because it is no longer freedom to choose if you are forced to choose.
Which is BULLSHIT.
Along the lines that mandatory elementary education deprives people of their freedom to be uneducated or educated - as they choose fit.
You know what's the most hilarious part?
They KNEW there'd be people like you out there. Back in 1776.
But please... do keep the system you yourself know to be broken, for the reason of "it's a travesty" fallacy and cooky conspiracy theories about "the reason [which] can't be openly stated".
Obama is after your precious bodily fluids, that's it. Has to be. Or he would state (openly) that he wasn't.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibi...
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
After half a century of this I'm still not sure if it's a good thing or not, independents are more often than not fringe dwellers, radicals, and religious nutters.
Basic tests of "are you a crazy person?" and "how does government work?" for those wanting to be elected should fix a lot of that.
I mean... ANY job interview requires at least SOME qualification and basic sanity.
If you're gonna serve food to people someone might want to know do you plan on poisoning anyone or do you understand the concept of food - just in case you are an alien (from space) or a robot from the future.
Vote - get a ticket to punch into your tax forms, so you don't pay the fine.
Don't vote - pay the not-voting fine.
Another way is to have an ID.
Which for some fluoride-in-our-teeth-reptilian-overlords-guns-eagles-freedom-aliens-mark-of-the-beast reason many here seem to be against.
Back in less crazy world, personal ID system is automatically a list of all living voters with their addresses and all.
Just compile a list of "no shows" and mail them their fines.
Instead of "I voted" stickers give out name+date+voting time+whatever tickets to cancel out accidental fines.
Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker
