I think her target market is Republicans who want a viable female challenger to Hilary. Realistically, she's setting herself up for Sec. of Commerce, or maybe, if she's extremely lucky and does moderately well in the primaries, VP. I am no fan of hers for all of the obvious reasons, but she is a rocket scientist compared to Bachmann and Palin.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Then why is it exclusively conservatives who use the incorrect term?
The language always seems kind of inflammatory, but sometimes I think they have something of a point.
When calculating risks and outcomes, everybody brings certain biases to the table about what are considered acceptable outcomes, losses and gains. That those biases may be driven by "masculinized rationality" may be taking it a bit far, but the idea that it's not a perfectly bright line threshold and that some tradeoffs may be involved shouldn't be disregarded.
Go to Mars. *Stay there*. Don't return the Presbyterian astronauts back home to Ohio. Keep lobbing supplies at the colonists until they can sustain themselves. Why on earth do we keep trying to re-enact the Apollo fiasco? Colonize, or don't go. Plenty of older folk such as myself who would be glad of a few years of low G before we die while we build up the place for later arrivals. Dying there? The horror! Um, of course you'd die if you stay on Earth anyway. Dying on Mars would be more scenic, and your knees wouldn't hurt when you stand up.
Of course, Mars won't pay for itself as far as Earth is concerned, the way orbiting terraria and factories would. Less room, less opportunity, and yet another gravity trap on any planet. Mars is a place to colonize. It can't produce wealth for the old country. And colonies don't care about the old world much, so we're building a suburb that will home-rule faster than a town next door to a impoverished city.
Well, limited vision, but at least we'd have two baskets to put our eggs in.
Err - no.
That number on the Digikey page isn't lumens per watt (I've no idea what unit mw/W is supposed to be).
If you look at the datasheet that LED is a max of 139 lumens with a forward voltage drop of 2.9 at 350 mA, or slightly less than 140 lumens per watt (under ideal conditions).
By definition there are 683 lumens per watt of radiant power at a wavelength of 555 nm.
The highest announced efficiency LED to date is "only" 303 lumens per watt - http://cree.com/News-and-Events/Cree-News/Press-Releases/2014/March/300LPW-LED-barrier
303/683 = 0.44 or 44%
The best LED I can actually buy is still under 200 lumens per watt, less than 30%
The 4flow, which is pretty close to the best consumer LED light bulb you can get is only 85 lumens per watt.
All much better (efficacy) than a CFL or incandescent, but no where near 48%
The irony is that the same logic applied to the job by the worker basically means -- I'm free to do whatever I want at this job, and if it doesn't work out of them they can fire me.
For the company, the logic means they can be abusive, discriminatory, dishonest and exploitive.
So for the worker then, I guess they can be lazy, dishonest, unproductive, etc. It's the worker's role to exploit the company for the maximum gain they can get. Maximum shirk, minimum work.
What's funny is, I would bet that author if presented with her own logic from a worker perspective would probably immediately launch into a diatribe about the worker's moral obligation to work hard, be a good employee, etc, yet she refuses to see any moral obligation by the employer to the employee.
"Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."
Sounds almost like a corollary to Clark's third law.
I think the biggest indictment of them is the fact even my highly pro environmental friends refuse to vote for them as they see them as only a destructive force towards environmental sustainability and see either coalition or labor as a better choice for the environment.
I'd love to hear the rationale behind their thinking.
Because I'm at a loss how two parties promoting growth at all costs, overconsumption, exploitation of the environment (stripe-mining Coal, CSG, dumping of spoil on the reef, etc) could possibly lead to a "better choice for the environment".
I think you are thinking of the greens from more than a decade ago. The Greens haven't stood for that for a long time. They are basically part of labor and push for policies for short term rather than taking consideration of the long term effects or goals.
Here is the Greens policy platform.
Tell us about which parts bother you.
The greens having power would probably do more damage to human decency and DEFINITELY more damage to the environment and the prospects of a sustainable future (if you destroy business you can't head to sustainability, you head towards being a 3rd world country or Greece).
Yes, obviously they'd do far more damage than the "growth at all costs", "destroy the middle classes" pro-oligopoly parties.
The real-world equivalent of this would be a little drone following you around recording where you went, who you talked to, where you went shopping, when you did it, etc, etc.
I wouldn't be comfortable with that. Would you ?
They are all pretty much scumbags. Not even most environmentalists vote for the greens anymore as they are little more than an extension of the labor party, focused on short term thinking and power plays.
Greens an extension of Labor ? Now there's a chuckle.
Sounds like you get most of your political information from your local Rupertarian.
I'm sure a few hardcore greenies have abandoned the Greens as they slowly morph into a generalist centre-left social-democracy party, but their share of the primary vote has remained pretty constant for a decade or more.
What, no clever comeback to the actual facts, Fox Newser?
Damned near every terrorist attack in the US has been end-times or anti-government christian cultists of one sort or another. Or racist cults. Or anti-tax cults. And we don't have anyone assigned to keep track of them. I blame Obama for caving in to the Republicans on this one. Doctor killers, Dominionists, Sovereign Citizens, this-land-is-ours loonies pointing guns at sherriffs from high ground WHILE ON LIVE ON CAMERA, and nothing happens and no one gets arrested, because everyone is afraid of them and their supporters. We don't even report on them.
But if a guy with a beard does it, on the news forever. Hell, the HS guys claiming someone was GOING TO join ISIS because reasons is national news for days. Every damned day it seems.
Reposted because downvoted by Fox News enthusiasts. And, I was right again, Cudahy.
Those warehouse workers work for employment contractors, not for Amazon. Our employment law is so destroyed that Amazon, indeed, any corporation, can treat you both as an employee of theirs and an employee of someone else. They aren't even pretending anymore - they do what they like.