All I'm seeing is "some guy posted a blog entry about a three-year-old paper". Surely it must have been on Slashdot before, though I can't actually find it with Google.
That is totally not the answer I was expecting. That's awesome. Thanks.
When I was in Ireland, I never bought another drink once people discovered I'd been to Boston. Which I though was odd, but it made a kind of sense given the large Irish population. It was like a kind of Irish promised land.
What's the Aussie connection to the Windy City?
Until it springs a leak. It'd be great for construction companies repairing water damage. Insurance companies typically have rules against upstairs waterbeds just imagine what they'd think of a rooftop tank.
"As to crops, why don't they put down thick black plastic over the entire field. Then capture that water to a swimming pool sized holding tank, and pump it back out via drip/sprinkler systems to water their plants as needed. "
Because the sky provides a drip/sprinkler system already. All this would do is increase the energy consumption. The natural rainfall reduces the need for watering. If there were enough water landing on the field for the crops they wouldn't need to water them at all.
I find it kind of remarkable that it's so low in the US. I wonder why that is. I can't imagine that conditions are any better. Or are UK prisons that much worse?
Could we be taking stronger steps to prevent it? (Surely not.) Could it be something about our pro-imprisonment culture that makes for a different mind-set among prisoners? Perhaps the record keeping is different?
I'm not any kind of expert, so this is the rankest speculation. The factor-of-five difference is very striking.
It's certainly not cost; executing someone costs far more than life does.
Only because the standard of proof is so high. We have a lot of protections in place for those who stand accused of a capital crime, precisely because it's so final.
And that's good, but that says less about capital punishment than it says about the difficulty of proof. How many people are put in prison for decades, sometimes to die there, because their cases don't attract as much attention and aren't subject to the same level of scrutiny? Prison is still punishment, made worse in many places (including the US) by subjecting the prisoners to each other. Last year 82 prisoners in UK prisons killed themselves, more than twice the 35 people who were executed in the US (with a vastly larger prison population). (I'm sorry; I couldn't find data on US prison suicides but I suspect it's at least comparably high.)
I wish we could provide all of the accused with the level of scrutiny that they deserve. It would save a great many lives from being ruined, a fate I find at least as horrifying as execution.
True, though it could well impact the estimates of methane emissions worldwide. If there's some unexpected source of methane, there may be more. Or it may indicate that if some sources are producing more then others are producing less, or that that methane atmospheric lifetime is different than we thought.
So it's scientific curiosity, but it may well end up having an impact on our understanding of climate change due to greenhouse gases, beyond the immediate production at this site.
It's always an election year now.
They most certainly are there to bolster skittles sales. Paying for coffee pods and skittles (all with a markup that turns a profit) where you used to have free coffee and donuts is not a perk.
"Most companies obviously produce products their employees can buy only since most companies target the middle/working class because most people are in the middle/working class."
I wasn't talking about most companies. I was talking about Ford and Walmart. Both companies use their own staff salaries as a benchmark for their target market and both successfully managed/manage to get their labor pool to turn around and spend their salaries on their products.
"If you are saying Ford raised its wages"
I didn't say that at all. I said it was no coincidence that his workers could afford his product. That doesn't mean he raised the salary of his workers to enable them to purchase, it means he used his workers as a representative sample of his target market and priced his vehicles so that they could afford them.
Latency is a technical requirement. High salary tech workers need low latency connections to the services in the US. Additionally, most of the technical expertise is still in the US. You bring them in slowly, have the US tech workers with the knowledge and the skills train them. Then you use your high labor costs as an excuse to lay off the US tech workers you just had train the imports and get them fit for interacting with US management.
Or he sucks at taking tests. Most tests lose sight of determining if you've learned the subject matter, those tests are too easy to pass. Instead they focus on trick questions. This is why many test taking strategies exist. For example, a commonly taught technique on a multiple choice exam is to look for two or more similar answer choices to narrow it down... Did you ever stop to think what valid reason there is for having multiple similar answers to a question on a test? It's done to make the test harder but the only ones it will make the test harder for are people who learned the material and are able to apply that knowledge to quickly pick the correct answer from a list of other options that don't fit.
Unemployed computer programmers are.
If that were true you wouldn't see the vending machines that fill break rooms that used to have free refreshments for workers.
"his car prices were set at a rate that his target audience could afford. They were not linked in any way."
Ford's target market was the typical american worker, it was no coincidence. You have to pay your workers regardless, if you can get them to turn around and spend that pay back into your pockets suddenly your labor costs just went down by your profit margin. See Walmart. Walmart's pricing is also targeted at what it's staff can afford.
That is also naive. The US is still the largest economy in the world, the companies are here because the money is here. Google, etc could already open offices overseas and not have to deal with any "tech shortage" or H1-B hassles. But google's profits come from the US and Google needs US infrastructure. If Indian or Chinese infrastructure were up to the task they'd still be screwed because of the latency induced by literally sending data back and forth to the other side of the world.
If you were an American still in Tech you wouldn't be saying this. Walking up and down the halls you find nothing but foreign workers.