No they don't. They literally do not because there is no reason why the FM radio service ever has to end.

Beating the utilities that way isn't even a goal that makes sense. Making the utilities work for the public should be the goal. Their function should be to get power to people that need it, when they need it, at the lowest cost consistent with that goal. They should belong to the public so there's no conflict of interest. Once solar systems are installed, they're the lowest cost source because they either produce power or the sit there in the sun not producing power. Generators have to be on line to make up the difference between power being produced right now and power demand right now.

To really handle it, you have to be able to prevent solar producers from putting power on the lines if there's too much production for the consumers. That means there need to be some restrictions on the design of solar systems so they don't keep dumping excess power into the grid when it's not needed. Ultimately this may mean that for cities with lots of solar systems, there will be parts of the day when your system limits itself to only producing what you can use in your house and puts no power back on the line.

Ooh, found my answer, "20 % of private cars are equipped with DAB radio." So 80% aren't. I think 80% of people are going to not like this once it happens.

Probably more. What percentage of listeners have at least one FM radio that doesn't receive DAB? For example, installed in a car?

It's a good thing nobody is suggesting magic (except you).

Because nobody expects him to get the Republican nomination.

Also because this:
http://www.fec.gov/press/resou...
242 official candidates as of whenever they last updated that list at the FEC. Most of them are nobodies. Rand Paul isn't a nobody but he doesn't toe the line for a Republican Presidential candidate so he's not going to win the nomination. Smart money is on Jeb Bush. Dumb money is Ted Cruz or Rand Paul.

Nobody is penalized.

Not offering more money is not penalizing.

It may be analagous to a US Design Patent.

Of course it's possible. My company does it all the time. There are several effective methods, the simplest being putting a jumper on the write-enable pin of the device that holds the firmware, and the removal of that jumper before you ship.

It may be an effective component to your total bug strategy, but it should be the last on the list. The primary effort should be oriented to not releasing the bugs to begin with.

Let's say I create an adversarial system in my company. I pay developers a base salary plus an at-risk bonus for delivery of software QA by the deadline. If they deliver before the deadline, the at-risk bonus increases.
QA has base salary plus can earn that at-risk bonus by finding the bugs between when it's delivered to them for analysis and the delivery commit date. Developers have incentive to deliver bug-free code, because that maximizes their bonus. QA is incentivized to find all the bugs, because that maximizes their bonus.

A lot of other posters have focused on other aspects of the workplace and opinions are all over the place. As a manager with a few years behind me in that role, I want to focus on one of the last areas you mentioned: HR and corporate.

They're the developers that do the actual work that makes money. Your job is to enable and encourage them to do that efficiently. (This goes for every other kind of productive work too, whether it's developing code or manufacturing widgets.) So there's time management and making sure they're on task but one big thing you can do is INSULATE THEM FROM CORPORATE BULLSHIT. Dealing with the bullshit is YOUR job. As much as possible, you keep it from affecting them and their work. If they are more than vaguely aware of HR policies, that's usually you not doing your job.

Another aspect is to insulate them from each other's bullshit so they don't detrimentally affect one another's. Sometimes that's necessary, especially if you have one or more primadonnas on the team.

To make reviews not suck (as much):
1. Keep a log of the assignments you give each person, the times when they agreed they would be done and when they actually were done and the quality of their work.
2. Most corps will make you or them define "goals" each year. Make sure those goals are in line with what they should be doing anyway. Have frequent meetings with them either as a group for group goals or one on one for individual goals and ask them about progress. Provide a sounding board about them.
3. Come review time, you will have a list of the things they accomplished, an assessment of how well they did them and how timely they were and their goals will either have been accomplished to your satisfaction or you will already know the reasons why.
4. When there are problem behaviors, talk to your devs about them right away. Never leave them to review time.

The review is then mostly just a summary discussion of the stuff in your log, unless they were a problem. You identify the qualities that helped them get their work done and any problem behaviors that came up repeatedly. Compliment them on their good behaviors again as you should have throughout the year. Summarize by saying how they're doing relative to your expectations. (Not relative to other team members -- they can all be doing great or they can all suck.)

At a lot of companies HR will require you to fill out some form that addresses behaviors and goals. You have to do that, and you have to nominally discuss it with your employees. But keep that as terse as possible and then put your real assessment in the overall comments area or on an attached document. Make it clear that what's important to you is not the HR form but what they do every day, that their actual work is valuable to you and the company.

Roots are usually included in the term "vegetables."

Yeah, it's true that modern people have some adaptations due to what they call "niche construction" which appears to be a fancy term for "agriculture" + "cooking" when it comes to diet.

For example, most modern people can digest milk, whereas our paleolithic ancestors mostly couldn't, and some populations of humans have developed heightened tolerance for carbohydrate-heavy diets that probably would have given our paleolithic ancestors diabetes. They still do that to many people today.

And the fact that we can tolerate foods our ancestors couldn't doesn't necessarily mean they're better for us than the kinds of foods they ate are for us. Humans never lost the ability to digest meat, fish, fruit and vegetables. All evidence shows that a diet heavier in fruits and vegetables with some fish and meat (not as much as most Americans eat) is optimal, and whether you attribute that to the adaptations of two million years of evolution or not doesn't really change the bottom line.

If you include fruits, it's pretty damn close to true. People didn't start eating grains in significant quantities until about 10000 years ago. Before that nearly 100% of their diet consisted of fruits, vegetables and meat (including fish). Humans became "behaviorally modern" about 40000 to 50000 years ago. So it's clear that a diet containing no grains can be nutritionally adequate for modern humans.

The only net benefit of eating grains and processed foods is that they're a cheaper way of fulfilling your caloric requirement but arguably they displace higher quality foods.

It's irrelevant that some people are allergic to milk; some people are allergic to any food you can name. Milk is a high quality food for people that can digest it.