I see, the amount of "Finished Motor Gasoline" was 134.5 BN, so I should have said "oil" instead of "gasoline."

In 2013, the United States consumed a total of 6.89 billion barrels of petroleum products, an average of 18.89 million barrels per day. A barrel is 42 gallons, so, 289 billion gallons.

Individual effort is precisely the wrong way to approach the problem. No individual has a measurable impact on the overall environment. The only thing that would work is manipulating the natural economic incentives that are pushing us towards disaster.

the effects on the environment are a side-effect, and comparatively small. If we decide to intentionally target the global environment, the effects could be much bigger.

We can only hope, but I find that extremely unlikely. How many dollars have been spent on dredging up carbon and dispersing it into the atmosphere in the last 200 years? The US spends a trillion dollars per year on gasoline alone, and the US is about 1/4 of world oil consumption (less by now). Global coal consumption is over 7 billion tons per year. That is a ton of coal for every man, woman, and child on earth, per year, every year, for decades on end.

What this means is even if we find some means of restoration that is 100 times as potent at cooling the planet as CO2 is in warming it, the task is incomprehensibly huge.

Here you go. (Jump to 3:36 if it doesn't do it for you).

Check out the sweet GPS Nav unit at 4:08 also.

He wasn't arrested for writing about shooting the neighbors' dinosaur. He was questioned about it, and then he escalated things from there. The story even says this. Even so, this type of anecdotal story is utterly worthless without knowing the backstory and what else was going on. Maybe it's just as ridiculous as it sounds, more likely not, but you really can't tell anything either way from these little tabloid "Can You Believe It!?" writeups.

Your comment makes me realize that tactic might work for toner, too... it has the exact same problem in my experience.

Hmmm. Perhaps employers will find that they can pay somewhat less for telecommuter positions, since it would enable employees to avoid commuting expenses, or even live far away wherever housing is cheap. (Overseas outsourcing being the extreme example of this.) It would be ironic for the Internet to kill Silicon Valley by easing the pressure for co-location.

No, the key is avoiding variable costs where one party pays, while another party benefits and controls the variable cost. This promotes waste. A hammer is not a variable cost.

For example, if employers had to pay for your commute, but you still got to choose where to live, you would have no incentive to minimize commuting costs. Thus the employee pays for the commute.

On the other hand, if a boss could make employees use personal cars on the job and not reimburse mileage, then the boss has no incentive to minimize work travel costs. Thus the employer pays for mileage imposed by work.

For me the existence of "Unlimited" plans really muddles the cellphone issue though. If the employer stated up front that you must have an unlimited plan as a condition of employment, that should be OK, since there is no variable cost involved.

Just as the ruling stated: ""We hold that when employees must use their personal cell phones for work-related calls..."

This clearly leaves your employer the option of requiring you to carry a cellphone they own as a condition of employment. Or leaving you alone at home.

You just described the problem in more words.

Yes, there are reasons for things. Even stupid, annoying things.

I question it. When you're running a database implemented in Java on a filesystem in an OS inside a VM on a filesystem inside another OS on virtual memory/paging hardware, that's 8 levels of largely redundant access control / containerization / indirection. It's a supreme mess and imposes a big burden of runtime cost and more importantly the burden of configuring all those layers of access control.

A) It needs to only be applied to Drones with Cameras

The ability to fly out of visual range is what a drone is. Otherwise it's just an RC helicopter or plane.

(I guess a drone without a camera could navigate solely by GPS, but it's hard to imagine the usefulness of that; without a camera it couldn't even deliver a payload with decent accuracy.)

Yea, MS money made the users hate the experience.

Oh, come now. All users complain at least sometimes. If a complaining user were really enough to change the course of the enterprise, how many Windows desktops would be left? Or Oracle? I use an Mac Pro at work myself, and it certainly is not perfect.

Maybe system in Munich really is bad, but you simply cannot determine that in any substantial manner just by sticking your finger into the air. It all comes down to subjective decisions by whomever is in authority.

How does it compare to eigenfaces?