The last sentence of the summary explains a lot:
"Those who attempt to return to work often find they are unable to carry out their former functions and after a few weeks, when coworkers get weary of 'covering' for them, they either are put on disability (if they are lucky) or fired or made Slashdot editors (if they are really unlucky)," she writes."
The last sentence of the summary explains a lot:
And Germany pays three times what the US pays for electricity http://shrinkthatfootprint.com...
If the US's cost suddenly tripled, I guarantee you that rooftop solar wold take off. I looked at it, and even with a 20% subsidy from Uncle Sam, I couldn't make the numbers work. But if electricity went up even 20% in cost, it would become worth it with the 20% subsidy. Without a subsidy, electric cost would need to go up 40% to make it worth it to me.
Germany's cost of energy is FAR higher than its peers. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com...
Can you please tell me the brand you got from Costco?
I had the same experience and found out that because I actually turn off lights when I leave the room that I am decreasing the lifespan of these bulbs. Apparently LEDs do not have this issue.
At 50,000 rated hours, almost no light in my house should burn out in my lifetime. Yet, my experience with CFLs is that they don't last nearly as long as the advertised life. So the issue becomes a question of whether we can trust the numbers that the manufacturers put out.
Does anyone have a link to a reputable 3rd party investigating the true lifespan of CFL vs LED? By brand? By usage pattern? I'd invest in the bulbs if I were reasonable sure that I would get my money's worth.
Isn't that what interns are for? They are certainly, much lower cost than a robot printer.
I recently (less than a year ago), bought an i7, four core, 8 thread machine. I use it a lot for chess analysis, and it is amazing how quickly it can get to a 24 ply deep analysis. Even with a slightly slower clock, 8 cores would be so much quicker.
About ten years ago, I cut out caffeine altogether. The first two weeks off of it was really tough. I slept a lot and when I was awake I didn't feel awake.
Now, I'm more alert than I was when I was caffeinated and when I hit the pillow at night, 9 times out of 10 I am out within five minutes. I wake up without an alarm clock and have no more than a minute or two of grogginess when I get up.
I was probably a harder core caffeine user than most, and with my personality, dialing it back wouldn't work -- it is either consume a lot or none at all.
Overall, it was the best health choice I've made for myself.
That is how a coward lives their life.
You sound like one of the Muslim idiots who think that if they are criticized that they can retaliate with killings. If that is your position, then you will have a war between those who are civilized and idiots like yourself who thinks it is okay. I am fine with that war as your side will lose.
Have a nice life.
Your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. Death threats break the law and can be punished by jail time. Whether you agree or disagree has no bearing on that.
You seem to be perfectly willing to sell out the long term future for the medium term, which is the weirdest case of short-sightedness I've ever seen.
And at this point, I think you are deliberately misstating my argument. Fusion is a dream at this point that the most knowledgeable in the sciences say is at least 60-80 years away from economic viability. Don't believe me? Look at the ITER roadmap, publically available. And the reality is that the visionaries are usually overoptimistic. You and I will be dead before it becomes viable and our children as well. And that is assuming this becomes viable as there is always a risk when talking about advanced tech like this. Even if you are convinced the science will work out, political upheaval could mean that we can't see the project through to the end. Just imagine a more indebted US and Europe having to cut science and a China that no longer has a market to sell to and collapses on its own centrally managed bureaucracy. Insert your own worst case scenario and you see why century long, multi billion dollar research projects are risky.
So, fund it? Sure. But not at the expense of something that is a sure thing and will have a huge benefit now. You state that solar is somehow selling out the long-term... unless you mean over a billion years from now when the Sun goes nova, I'm not sure how this is remotely accurate.
Uh-oh, someone has been drinking the renewables koolaid again.
Thank you for your well-reasoned, informative response. Based on your information, I am changing my entire worldview. Thanks again, Anonymous Coward!
It may be cynicism, but it is well placed cynicism. I'm all for funding fusion research, but the reality is that we are decades away from seeing anything remotely economically viable.
And the other reality is that we do have solar which is already economically viable but still behind fossil fuels (if you forget about externalites). If I were king of the world, I'd fund solar heavily because it can do good NOW. Serious good. World saving good.
And, yes, it is a false dichotomy to say we can only fund one. But the other reality is that we have only so much money for the sciences and one dollar spent on one project is one not spent on the other. If I were King of the world I'd also cut military spending and fund sciences much more heavily.
But, alas, I am not King of the world.