There is no link between scraping CO2 from the atmosphere and using renewable energy to generate e-diesel and ethanol production from food sources. CO2 is unlimited in supply for all intents and purposes. Carbon shifting technologies like this should be and will be part of the transition to cleaner energy.
Isn't this basically what many of the HFT's do all the time? So they found a scapegoat who was moving in on their turf and lowering their profit and so they got the political machinery to ice him.
The futures market is a commodity market (real commodity contracts) while HFT is usually in the stock market i.e. Paper assets
It's a great sentiment that you express and I agree with all of it. It doesn't really speak to the idea that the only purpose of business is to make money. When you study 20th century business history and compare the age of managerialism to age to value maximisation (mid-80s onward) the data shows that the first had better outcomes, both for the business and for society.
If you believe the only goal of the company is to make money I hope you never start a business. Shareholder Value Maximisation theory pushed forward by Milton Friedman has been one of the most destructive and empirically flawed ideas in the 20th century.
playing too much unreal took way more than 5% off of my grades.
i didn't start using cannabis regularly until after college, it's vastly superor to alcohol in the "how functional am i at work the next day if i overindulge" department.
For me it was all night Super Smash Bros. Melee in the communal dorm living room
I loved playing LAN games with the Gravis, even though most mouse/keyboard players were superior.
All your points are valid consideration IFF the choice is to give up EU citizenship while accepting US. I don't believe this is the case with regard to the question. I could have worked in the Uk my whole life as a UK citizen and be entitled to my national UK pension as well as social security. Citizenship is not a prerequisite for retirement, welfare, or entitlements; only legal residence.
I see a lot interesting and pragmatic points mentioned on this thread, but nearly all of them seem to opine based on the short-term consequences of the following: taxation issues, access to jobs, travel restrictions, and education.
Taxes (stupid reason, unless you're extremely wealthy):
Speaking as a former Ex-pat living in the UK, I can tell you that taxes are absolutely annoying as hell, but the honest truth is that the penalties are not bad at all even if you're late. It's a minor inconvenience, and the reality is that taxes are usually even owed unless you break 6-figure salary. You can inquire about Foreign Tax Credit or Foreign Earned Income Exclusion. Taxes is a poor reason to deny your children citizenship opportunity, especially where there is a good chance that such issues of taxation will be harmonized in your childrens' lifetime. Stupid tax policies don't last forever. Unless you're kids make A LOT of money, taxes won't really be a huge issue. If you're living in a low taxation zone, then there might be an issue, be European taxes tend to wash out any US tax claims. Additionally, while some dual-taxation specialists are very expensive, I found it far better to hire a reputable accountant in the US who can properly fill out FTC or FEIE forms, Turbo Tax Pro makes this very easy. I found a great guy who did 6 years of taxes for $650. For me thats a bargain with all my tax complexities.
Access to Jobs (very good reason in favor of citizenship):
The best reason I can think of is to provide citizenship to your children is so they have access to the US job market in the future. People give their kidney's for a green card for a reason. The ability to say you're a citizen helps in so many industries. It also allows you to demand higher pay in some instances. In my case, the equivalent British hire would have been hired for one-third less at my firm.
I found that US citizenship helps with travel freedoms. I have no basis to compare US with Swedish/EU/Belgian travel freedoms but I would wager they are equivalent or superior in some instances.
If Belgian/Swedish/EU healthcare access can be maintained while accepting US citizenship, then its really the best of both worlds. I miss the UK healthcare system dearly. One of the few known benefits of the NHS UK is that even if you live in another country, if you get critically ill, they will come out and fly you back to the UK for medical treatment. Chartered plane, nurse, the works. It really is amazing in the grand scheme of things. Not sure how NHS compares to other EU countries, but I'm sure its comparable and far superior to the US in terms of care and management.
Education opportunity and the ability to qualify for financial aid is the top reason, in my mind, why you should provide your children citizenship. As US citizens, your children will qualify for numerous grants, awards, and scholarships, as well as need-based financial aid. Whether you choose to use this for your children's undergraduate needs is your choice, but your children will find it much easier to pursue graduate studies in the US as a citizen. Foreign students simply cannot afford US universities unless they have strong family support back home. Additionally if your fear is that you don't want your students saddled with debt, don't worry, because the government can only take a maximum of 10% of Adjusted Gross Earnings in a given year. For people with children and average paying jobs, usually this means less than $500 to zero dollars. The great thing about federal loans is that you only really pay if you can afford to pay back. After 20 years of ontime payments (even if payments are zero), your debt is forgiven, and you just pay the tax on the remainder.
So all this said, if dual-citizenship is the option, go for it, besides the taxation issue, I see no serious downside. If you have to give up citizenship somewhere, then the issue deserves more thought. Regardless of all this, speaking to a lawyer is worth it.
This is why contracts need to be reviewed by lawyers. I'm sure there a few firms would relish the chance to sue Dell for breach of contract and irreparable harm.
If you are running cores are 100% on a routine basis, Turbo Boost should be disabled for maximum stability. It's really that simple. Additionally, a good IT solutions professional will provide management a financial model that shows the ROI of routine an regular hardware upgrades. For development work, don't be stupidly bound to 3-5 year IT lifecycles especially if a newer CPU generation will yield big productivity gains.
To be honest, I would rather focus on
You're assuming that current copper last mile links are at full capacity, this isn't the case. The capacity of copper lines is determined by the protocol used to regulate the link. For example, if a cable company in a neighbourhood is using an older Docsis 2.0 modem, all the company has to do is upgrade the hardware at the neighborhood nodes, upgrade the customers' modems to Docsis 3.0, and ensure enough back haul interconnection at the peering site (see #5). There is no digging at all. While copper is not as good as fiber, the progress in multiplexing and switching tech has made copper's long term value continue to far exceed its initial layout costs many times over. Until physicists say, "that's it, copper is at capacity," the idea that copper lines need to be added to existing infrastructure is wrong. Even today, there is a lot of unlit fiber in municipalities, but due to state law, cannot be deployed by munis because of "unfair competition" with private sector. Our current policies at the state and federal level do not have public purpose in mind at all, it is the golden age of monopoly interests.
Thank you for giving us the Netflix perspective. Counter arguments:
1) Residential broadband networks were never engineered as video delivery systems. The advent of mainstream streaming video completely changed the engineering calculus for last mile networks. Over subscription ratios need to change to accommodate the higher peak hour bitrates; this takes time and costs money. Where should this money come from? Why should I pay the same for my connection as the household that's running three or four simultaneous HD streams during peak hours? My 95th percentile is less than 0.5mbit/s, yet I pay the same as my neighbor who regularly runs three HD streams at the same time. Hardly seems fair, does it?
2) Related to the last point above, moving bits doesn't directly cost the ISP money but sustained higher bitrates do require a larger CapEx investment. Caps are a blunt force instrument that should be done away with in favor of demand or 95th percentile billing, IMHO.
3) IPTV is inherently inefficient vis-a-vis point-to-multipoint delivery systems (i.e., cable, OTA, satellite)
4) Settlement free peering (which is essentially what Netflix is demanding) has historically only been offered in instances where the traffic to be exchanged is roughly equal. If you're relying on me to deliver your traffic for you then you pay me. It has been this way since the beginning of the commercial internet. This ecosystem literally built the internet as we know it. If you want to blow it up the onus is on you to explain why your system is better.
5) Netflix has a history of trying to offload their costs onto third parties, be they ISPs, Tier 1 networks, CDNs, etc.
6) Netflix isn't exactly the white knight that everyone thinks they are. They're a for profit company; one that I stopped doing business with after they decided to double my price with little prior warning. They've cut deals that are detrimental to their customers (i.e., withholding new releases); any other company that behaved in such a fashion would be roundly hated around these parts.
1. False choice - how a delivery system was engineered is irrelevant. Today fiber technology and capacity exists and the infrastructure investments are not Capital intense.
2. False - Moore's law is the technical constraint. Political will is the social constraint.
3. False - Iptv is better at all distribution workloads for media. Networking tech easily allows for highly efficient compressed or uncompressed media delivery via multicast protocols. It is cable that is inefficient.
4. False - research has proven that assymmeteic last mile connections can never allow for equal peering. The premise that bits flowing in one direction costs more than the other direction is a calculated business decision based on the monopoly and regulatory environment. The same way that international sms messages are technically cost less, same goes for bits traveling in either direction, it's a neutral proposition.
5. The costs you are talking about are less than a few thousands of dollars per link. A drop in the bucket.
6. Drop subscribtion. There are alternative media delivery businesses consumers can choose. Consumers have no such luxury under current US isp arrangements.
Studied electrical & network engineering, public policy and econ. Counterarguments welcome
I have fios and still don't really want to keep it. I would gladly give up fios if it meant title 2 became a reality. Luckily it's not an either or proposition.
Use WAAD or Okta, or learn how to setup a proper SSO environment since both platforms you mention offer excellent SSO interop.