...when every programmer (and tech support person, and manufacturing person) in the US can get a job, that's the time for US operations to be looking for foreign help.

But since age, health, formal schooling, in-country location, and credit score are widely and consistently used to deny highly skilled US programmers jobs -- I am very confident in saying that Mr. Graham has not even come close to identifying the "programmer problem" from the POV of actual US programmers. All he's trying to do here is save a buck, while screwing US programmers in the process.

Do it his way, and the US economy will suffer even further at the middle class level as decent jobs go directly over our heads overseas, while, as per usual, corporations thrive.

This is exactly the kind of corporate perfidy that's been going on for some time. Graham should be ashamed. He represents our problem. Not any imaginary lack of US based skills.

If you live in a hydro state, electricity is even cheaper (I think 6 or 7 cpkwh).

With shopping and 6 month contracts (instead of 3 year), you can get 8.3 cpkwh right now.

Short contracts are cheap,
1-2 year are more expensive.
And 3 year are less expensive but more expensive than short term contracts.

To be honest, going to LED's is a much better payoff than solar power cells right now and will probably be for several more years. They all pay for themselves within 6 months. But you have to stick with the 3100k bulbs otherwise you get wierd shades of pink and orange or intense blue white (which will keep you up at night).

Because the price is set by the last 1%.

If we can get 99% of our oil out of the ground for $40 per barrel and 1% of our oil out of the ground for $100 per barrel- then every barrel sells is if it cost $100 per barrel to get out of the ground.

And that's just in the united states. Europe also has a similar size fleet of electric vehicles.

And in Europe, for instance, while total petroleum consumption averaged over 15.3 million barrels per day in 2009, it was under 14.3 million in 2013, and has dropped further since.

We get 19 gallons of gasoline per barrel so that's so 465,000 fewer gallons of oil here (and another 465,000 fewer gallons of oil in europe) translates to 48,000 barrels a day of oil that used to be needed that isn't needed any more.

Totally- not at all. But part of the reason for lower demand? Sure.

I'm sure there are many components to the lower demand and the higher supply.

Three are roughly 600,000 to 700,000 hybrid electric cars (so about 325,000 gallons a day of gasoline not used) and about 70,000 purely electric cars (so about 140,000 gallons a day of gasoline not used). So purely electric and electric/hybrid cars have reduced demand for gasoline by roughly 465,000 gallons of gasoline per day.

What is actual electricity in Hawaii now? I was told 27 cents by a Hawaiian on another discussion board-- it sounded really high but I figured imported coal/oil or something was a factor.

4 years after you bought it, it was up to 500 mile range and getting 50 mpg.

The range increases must partially also translate to the "refill cost" so it's gotten less expensive to drive over time.

Impressed-- range of electric cars was the main challenge factor (until the recent gasoline price drop).

Electric at 12c/kwh runs about 1/4 the cost of gasoline at $3.50 ($3.50/100 miles vs $14/100 miles). My electricity runs 10.3/kwh and houston gasoline is down to $1.99 here (Waxahachi has $1.91 gasoline as of 12/21).

So about $3/100 miles electric and $8/100 miles gasoline right now.

Apparently you do NOT want electric cars in Hawaii (something like 27c/wkh).

It doesn't take many electric cars to kill 1% of oil demand and cut $40 to $50 per barrel off the top price for a barrel of oil.

If the main text of a religion isn't a reliable guidebook to that religion, how can we determine if anything is?

Obviously, we can't.

What made you think we could?

All major (and most minor) religions present huge diversity. Within Christianity, the bible is taken as everything from vague metaphor to the "inerrant word of God." The Koran for Islam, the same. Buddhist practice ranges from meditative to non, from vegetarian to non, from rigidly scientific to the most laughable crystal-gazing nonsense you've ever heard of. New agers.... that's a basket so broad I don't even have a clue as to what it really means, although I have to say, I've rarely come away from someone's description of their new age ideas thinking "wow, that made sense." OK, actually, never. But I figure it could happen. :)

In addition to actual sect differences, there are practitioner differences, and they range all the way from non-believers who are there for the social aspect, to rigid adherents to every jot and tittle in every book (and some, like the Catholics, have quite a few books.)

For my part, I figure, if I want to know what someone thinks, just ask them. Unless I have specific relevant evidence, I don't assume people fit into standardized boxes. I have found that to very rarely be true.

Wolverine had the bony claws and regeneration first (even as a child). They were covered with adamantium much later.

Selective pressure is pressure if someone fails to breed as a result of the selective pressure.

For example, in the bacteria experiment it took them 3 different mutations in combination and tens of thousands of generations but they still eventually developed new beneficial abilities.

Bottom line, Everyone doesn't have to be constantly subjected to whiplash.

I do, actually. Well, they're more partners than customers, since we give them our code and they sell it. But, yes, I have a lot of meetings with outside parties. We convince about half of them to join our Hangouts from their laptops, the others we add to the meeting via phone. Outside of meetings, we communicate entirely via e-mail. Voicemail is still irrelevant.

At IBM, my role was entirely customer-facing. Voicemail was still fairly rare, though teleconferences were the norm. Most communication was, again, via e-mail or face to face.

Which means absolutely nothing because you can't actually use any of that firepower in any conflict short of "Civilization as we know it is coming to an end." That's not to dispute the rest of your points, which are mostly valid, but let us leave the SSBN out of the calculation of modern naval firepower. They have a specific mission: deterrence. The day they are called upon to loft their birds is the day that mission has failed.

There is an argument to be made that we need more ships, particularly attack submarines and surface combatants. The former will prove decisive in any conflict with the PRC and the latter are needed for missile defense, amongst other missions. Unfortunately most of the shipbuilding budget is going to the Gerald Ford CVNs while the looming Ohio replacement is going to consume billions more. Both are needed at the end of the day, so unless we're going to throw more money at the Navy I'm not sure what the solution is. I'd opt for throwing more money at them, since it takes decades to build a modern Navy, and it can't be used (as easily) for interventionist adventures in the same manner as a standing army....

Well THAT is fucking offensive, the way you said "codifying" it sounded like "codpiece".

Yes? Well then...

Baldric... Bring me... The Black Russian!

Needless to say, by disagreeing, I mark myself as an un-person.

Needless, pointless, and untrue. Someone else may so choose to regard you; you, however, are not that at all, and anyone who takes the attitude that you are, as you put it, an "unperson", is solely responsible for that attitude. You're still you, just as worthy as ever.

Consider the source, soldier on. Defy invalid social norms.

Some things are just not done, and are socially unacceptable this is one of them.

Socially unacceptable is one thing. And the appropriate response from you when faced with something you identify as such is also social: adjust your respect, relationship(s) and commentary according to the social cues you are given.

Relying on coercion and/or violence exerted by your government so you can assure that the general social environment is only populated by speech you approve of is something else entirely. It reeks of abject failure on your part, and on the part of your legislators. Such government-based active repression is one of the very few things that is more despicable than intentionally offensive speech presented without even a suggestion of humor.

> But as an athiest, my very existence is 'offensive' to muslims.

I'm an atheist as well. And I am aware that some Muslims proactively take offense because of my lack of belief.

However, you should be aware that of the five pillars of Islam, none say or imply one word about "hating atheists." That's just crap out of the Koran, which is a mish-mosh of uncorrelated and unordered quotes. Only fanatics take the violent sections of the Koran seriously. Not that there aren't enough fanatics to go around, of course.

> Are you suggesting that I should commit suicide to appease the Muslims?

Not in the least. I wasn't suggesting anyone should commit suicide, or in any way alter who or what they are. These are not things that give offense. You have not chosen to be atheist in order to give offense, have you? I presume you're atheist because you find that to be a comfortable state of mind, one that correlates well with what you observe of the world around you. Nothing to do with giving offense at all. I'm not wrong, am I? If I am, please let me know... that's a whole 'nuther bag of wolverines.

Simply being (existing as) atheist is not giving offense. That is the same as the case where someone is simply "being atheist" or "being Christian" or "being Muslim" or "being a rock collector."

When such provokes an "offended" response, we are merely seeing examples of the common practice by muddy thinkers of taking offense for any, or no, sane reason...

> Go Fuck Yourself ...Just as you have here. Brilliant to have so cleverly put yourself in exactly the same unreasonable club with those nasty, hateful, offended Islamists, isn't it? :)