... still use Sybase, and not some Johnny-come-lately like Oracle. Even for compliance stuff.
Your signature is profoundly disturbing. Citation, please?
Most of leaders, at least in Germany and Hungary, are in bed with the Russians and likely won't do anything about fuel security.
Don't know much about Hungary (*), but if you really think that Merkel is "in bed with the Russians" you have bigger problems than worrying about your fuel security.
Anyway, oil dependence is essentially transport based; more specifically, private car use. So cut or reduce your dependence on that. You live in a multi-storey building of which you control only part - some kind of apartment block - so probably a fairly densely populated area. That makes it simple: If you currently drive a car to work, stop doing that. If you're really lazy, you could get a motorbike or scooter, drastically reducing your dependence; if you're not that lazy start cycling. With a bit of practice, a 20-30K commute on a bike is really not hard, and you'll save money on gym fees. That's oil dependance sorted.
Natural gas is trickier if you don't own the building (or at least apartment). If you can, you should probably install solar panels on the roof - not for your own use, as such, but to take advantage of the feed-in tariffs. And then buy an electric convection heater so you can heat your apartment if the gas gets cut off. And maybe buy a good sleeping bag or extra duvet. That won't save you from a catastrophic meltdown - you'd need a wood burning stove, a cabin in the woods, and a seriously unhealthy dose of paranoia(**) for that, but it will make short outages of gas a lot more comfortable.
(*) Feel free to sing this comment to the tune of Sam Cooke's "Wonderful World"
(**) You seem to already have 1 of those three.
> You aren't expected to diagnose the ever-growing list of infectious diseases.
The list isn't growing. If it is, it's growing much slower than the list of available drugs/
> You'll never be called on to give a colonoscopy.
Most doctors aren't Gastroenterologists, so neither will they.
Also, giving one is probably less unpleasant than receiving one.
>Many pharmacists go their entire careers without ever being stopped in the hallway because "that lump on the patient in 208 just burst and is oozing something purple."
And so will almost all doctors
>Less radiation exposure.
If you get radiation exposure as a doctor, you're either doing emergency relief at a nuclear plant, or you're not doing your job right.
>Rubbish. Women aren't as good at men in sports.
Assuming you have a decent TV service, look back at the winter Olympics. Snowboarding, bobsleigh, skeleton, skiing. Is the women's competition any worse than the mens? Look at the icedancing, speed skating, etc. Still not convinced?
Historically, men have watched sports, and - particularly in the team sports - it seems that men are more in need of that tribal identification with a group than women are.
Or maybe it's simply that many more men than will admit to it enjoy watching hot men get sweaty
If you discriminate based on race, you're cutting off a certain percentage (varying by country) of the talent pool. Stupid.
If you discriminate based on gender, you're cutting off ca. 50% of the talent pool. Really stupid.
You don't need to invoke lofty principles to argue against discrimination.
The supply/demand issue doesn't really have much to do with discrimination.
>Yea, there was a Ruby workshop I was interested in attending; but seems it was only open to women.
There are tons of Ruby workshops. Look at the gender distribution in most of them. 90% male? 95% male? 99?
> If they felt men as a gender would be disruptive then that should be handled on an individual basis regardless of gender,
I have no idea what you meant to say, but what you said does ont make any sense.
> even then I find it hard to believe that it'd be a widespread issue.
If you find the gender imbalance (and some of the nastier aspects of that) in IT not to be a widespread issue, you're either
* wilfully blind
* stupid beyond belief
* incredibly blessed to work in a balanced environment.
> As it stands, women probably have a far greater opportunity advantage from Diversity Quotas, Gendered Scholarships, and Classes
That's an opinion, and you're perfectly entitled to it. But given that we don't have hordes of female junior programmers - it's probably wrong.
Did I say probably? I meant certainly.
> lsu many of the complaints can be attributed to the female dominated HR field;
Oh, yes, it's HR stopping people from hiring all these female programmers because they're too darn pretty! HR can't handle the competition!
Either that, or you don't actually get *any* CVs from women. Ever.
Have you ever been a hiring manager? I've spent 20+ years (*) in IT. I've worked with 4 female developers. Two of which I had to hire as mathematicians (they were, but they could also code).
> which has shown that women in HR will not hire other women they consider to be prettier then themselves.
Citation, please - or did you just make that up on the spot? Logically that would imply the HR department is populated by the ugliest people you can find that are still qualified to do the job. That's not even true in Dilbert/
(*) Look at my user id. And then get the HELL off MY lawn. (**)
(**) Before you get the hell of my lawn, please try and take the time to talk to someone of the female persuasion and ask how they feel in all male meetings, or if that's too tough, just google "programmers being dicks". THEN get the hell of my lanwn.
Or two. And a job chairing a new oversight committee for the intelligence services.
Ssssh! You'll just confuse him with numbers and science!
Joking aside, I think PV has great potential in the sunnier parts of the world. Possibly not for energy intensive businesses like welding, but lighting (hugely important!), internet access, computing are easier to supply via PV. And even relatively (for a small business) projects can be financed via microfinance lenders - e.g. kiva.org. Go and check it out!
Of course, the most effective short tern effort would be to slap a 200% tax on gas in the US, and add a huge carbon levy on electricity and natural gas.
You could make it budget neutral by subsidising fuel-efficient cars, public transport, and home insulation.
Sadly, that's never going to happen.
Dude, if you call it "gas", the cost of it is ludicrously low where you live. Move somewhere where they call it "petrol" for a while, and wince at what high prices really mean.
And cold showers help you suppress those dirty, dirty thoughts!! You shouldn't care about anyone but mother earth!
Seriously, though, there are lots of ways of saving energy without forsaking hot showers forever. And solar hot water panels are such basic technology that I'd be very surprised if their energy footprint outweighed their benefits.
If the offsets don't do what they advertise, it isn't Al Gore's fault that they don't.
a) citation please
b) that seems unlikely, since dividends or capital gains would be more tax efficient
c) Climate change deniers wouldn't recognize logic if it spat them in the face.
It's all beneficial, but asking someone in the third world to burn less wood to cook their food while you happily burn gallons of gas to drive yourself to the mall is ever so slightly hypocritical.