Sounds like there is a market for a mobile testing lab (and the equipment that could fit in a large truck with a generator).

Downstream is a key component. We get rain / melt-off that is used by farmers and cities in other states as well. Water in the west is a precious thing and "ownership" of it is order dependent. Someone owns the first drop of water flowing in the river, and someone else own X gallons / time period only if there's enough left over them after the senior stakeholders are accounted for. Those rights don't care if you are upstream or downstream, but on seniority.

With the possibility of water intensive shale oil extraction, oil companies have been buying senior water rights in Colorado for some time and then leasing them back to farmers / etc. If shale oil happens seriously, and needs the water that's predicted, things could get ugly in a hurry.

I think the "distributed across the map" part is key. In beginner / intermediate play, a really key ability is to actually remember to keep building stuff while scouting or fighting. Can you throw down that building on time while also looking at your opponent's base and gleaning useful information there in an early scout? In an early skirmish, can you micro well enough to gain a minor advantage while also still building workers for the long term economy that actually matters? In the midgame, it's worse, you have building workers, troops, scouting, managing supply, map positioning, upgrades, watching the mini-map for counters/drops, etc, etc, etc all going on at the same time in different places of the map and screen.

90% of the players in the world can't really do these things consistently well because the require you to take care of a lot of background work while actively focused on the exciting stuff. That's genuinely hard and you get better at it incrementally at best.

How did that work out for him in Russia?

BS. My wife scheduled her LA to Sydney flight in sync with Quantas' use of the 380 over 747.

Writing "All X do Y" when talking about people is almost always wrong.

The line really is starting to crumble with DevOps entering the field. While it's still usually two different people with different skill sets. They're increasingly being put on the same delivery team.

As a software company that makes products for IT departments, someone who can write code and "gets" IT is an extremely interesting candidate in a range of positions (from development to solutions engineer).

Your risk is that we (or anyone else) stops believing that you can actually write code. So you'll want to stay sharp there with a pet project, contributions to open source or something along those lines.

One should enjoy the fruits of their labor. And our taxation policies are progressive, so you never take home less money by earning more.

At the same time, those of us who are making a lot of money (I include myself) are being served extremely well by the current system and economic realities. The rich are getting richer. The poor and middle class are stagnating. It is not unreasonable to ask those who are benefitting most from the current system to pay the most to support it.

At most airports you have the option of mailing that little credit card tool with a knife in it back to yourself. But you probably got it for free at a trade show and would rather bitch about government abuses than pay 6 bucks to mail it to yourself.

Well, at least that's how I felt when the bastards took mine away.

More specifically, they'd be insane to ever have the file. It would mean sending it to them. Much smarter and more efficient to hash the file on your computer (ignore meta-tags) and match against the tag on their server. Done. They never have the file and never look at the incriminating bits.

This is why Apple thinks they can have all your music to you quickly instead of the weeks of upload time to get it to google. Because you don't upload it. They might still be uploading meta information that would be incriminating, but they would have to go out of their way to do so.

Correct, this is not a theory, like the theory of gravity.

It is an attempt to understand the steady increase in global temperatures over the years. There's plenty of refutable science at work. Researches uncover trending data of global temperatures. Other researchers could show problems in approach, or show data that disagrees.

Modelers make predictions of change over the course of years. The accuracy of their predictions speaks to the quality of the models.

Fundamentally, though we have a problem. It would be great if we had two planets. One where we toss as many greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and another where we do everything the super enviro-crazy vegan wants us to do. Then a hundred years later, we compare temperatures. The problem is that we don't have spare planets to play with. So we have a relatively high stakes game where we work with models, and do a lot of falsify-able detailed science to help inform those models. Only in the models can we run the data for 100 or 1000 years quickly and without much consequence.

Oh, and anyone who would blame Bush for climate change is a nut job. Most of the damage done so far was done before his birth, while he was a child, or while he was a drunk and playboy. It's hard to blame him for any of that. But to argue only against the nut jobs is strawman bullshit. You're right though, czars aren't going to help. A carbon tax might (and might help balance budget or free money for other tax cuts). Helping China build cleaner coal plants might (and would be cheaper than retrofitting ours). But yeah, czars won't help much.

Wow...

Just because it's been cooler at your house for the last two years, does not mean the earth, as a whole, is not getting warmer in general.

It's perfectly plausible that the average temperature on the planet could rise significantly while a region, like Europe, gets colder. For instance, general warming could result in polar warming diminishing the northern ice caps (as we're seeing). Should those ice caps melt enough, the iceberg melting in the north atlantic would dramatically lesson since no glaciers would spawn them. The atlantic currents would be disrupted, lessening the gulf stream. Winds flowing over those warm waters would no longer carry that extra heat to Europe and slowly the weather in Paris starts to resemble Winnepeg (about the same latitude). The good news for Winnepeg is that it's likely to warm up a little.

That's climate change in a nutshell. General warming. Local cooling. Some areas get dryer. Others wetter. Very, very complicated interplay between systems makes predicting winners and losers extremely difficult.

And I swear, the next time there's a snowstorm and people use that as evidence that there isn't global warming, I'm going to punch someone in the face.

Or... our jobs are such that we visit our clients across the country. So I could spend every weekend driving and only be able to cover 20% of the country, or I can take a 10 minute pass through a security line twice a week. I'll take a ten minute inconveinance and let someone fly me somewhere in 4 hours rather than do a four day drive across the country - which would cost more money anyway.

Now, if you live on the East Coast, you might be able to travel to lots of people in a few hours. You might also be enough of a pretentious ass to think the whole country is on the east coast. For the rest of us, flying can be needed. For some of us, it's a regular thing that lets pay for things like food.

At the same time, the states compete with eachother by lowering their tax rates - so they're (almost all) broke. IF moving towards more renewable energy is a national goal, then this is perfectly appropriate. Energy can be moved (at cost) so parts of California may benifit as well and nationally we would benifit from this being a success that other plants could be modelled on. Likewise, if the east coast wants less air pollution, it may be equally effective for it to fund renewable energy upwind in the West where things like solar are viable than to try to build something like this in a much more cloudy area.

While built regionally, the benefits of this being a solar plant (rather than a coal one) could be national.