Nobody likes Putin.
Except of course for all the people who like Putin.
Nobody likes Putin.
Except of course for all the people who like Putin.
Throw Google under the bus not the poor folks just trying to feed their families.
"Poor folks just trying to feed their families"? These are well paid engineers with options. Anyone talented enough to get a job at Google is talented enough to secure employment elsewhere. They are willing accomplices to this action and pretending otherwise is disingenuous. Evidently these engineers lack a moral compass and their word means nothing. If they had a problem with this action they could easily have spoken up and taken action but they took the easy path and did nothing.
Pretty sure you'd scream bloody murder if you employer's actions were layer at your feet - douche!
My employer's actions are routinely laid at my feet and rightfully so. I am responsible for my actions at my employer as well as those who work for me. Companies are comprised of people who commit these actions and when these actions injure others there should be some accountability. If I have an ethical problem with what management at my company is doing or if I was wrongly accused of something I was not responsible for you can be quite certain I would either leave or take appropriate action to defend myself. But if I'm quiet about something then effectively I am endorsing it.
MY 2012 MBP still works perfectly and with the recent SSD drive install will go another 2 years just fine. I bought it brand new when work bought me a piece of garbage $900 consumer laptop. and then 2 years later bought me a $800 crap laptop to replace the previous one that the screen failed on, and then finally a $650 piece of crap lenovo that prompty had all kinds of issues and the hinge cracked on in 30 days.... all the time the macbook was used the same amount every day, even dropped a few times.
the macbook pro cost $2000 and outlasted 3 Garbage windows laptops from Dell, Toshiba and then Lenovo. My current job is not ran by retards and bought me a $3000 dell precision 7510 it's built well and has decent parts in it like my macbook (no marvell garbage) it has been FLAWLESS for far longer than any windows laptop I have had previous except for when I used to use Panasonic Toughbooks.
It's not the OS, its the hardware being build decently. It's why I utterly ignore the idiots that claim that macbooks are overpriced and they can get a $600 laptop that will do the same thing. No you cant.
Moral of the story.... pay for the hardware up front, or pay for it over and over again. That last lenovo went through 5 keyboards as letters keys would stop working and have to be struck hard. not a problem for those that dont use them for work... but whne you are programming at $125 an hour havignthe fucking O key stop working will make life hell.
Now my current laptop actually runs a hypervisor as the OS and then runs a windows VM... if I have a problem I simply reboot and launch a working VM image. downtime is less than 60 seconds. Oh and we only use windows 7, windows 10 is completely banned corperate wide until further notice.
In the end, IT saved millions globally because their stock orders were drastically reduced, yet on the local level you had engineers being paid upwards of $1000 a day to twiddle their thumb while they wait for their $500 computer to arrive. But IT doesn't see one dime of that cost.
That just means that the accountants at that company were crap at their job and weren't assigning costs properly. Sadly this isn't an uncommon occurrence.
There are no known "facts" regarding the safety of the full vaccine schedule
You've said that elsewhere and it's still bullshit. There are is plenty of evidence and research about that exact thing and I've given you links in other threads. You just can't be bothered to look for any of it. Stop it with your nonsense. You are wrong and don't know what you are talking about.
Have you ever seen scientific study of the full schedule of vaccines in a double blind?
No and you haven't either. Conducting such a study would be hugely unethical because it would involve exposing large numbers of people to preventable diseases with known means of prevention. Double blind studies are ideal when possible but there are plenty of other valid means of studying diseases without resorting to double blind studies.
A vaccine may be safe, but the full schedule of vaccines has NEVER been studied.
Not true at all. It has been studied extensively. Furthermore there is substantial empirical evidence than any safety concerns about the full schedule of vaccines is a very small effect if it exists at all.
Now, tell me. where is the actual science on the full schedule of vaccines?
In the clinical studies for each and every vaccine and diseases that could conceivably be related to their administration. I suggest you go speak to an epidemiologist since you are in need of a clue about this. I'm sure they'll be happy to fill you in.
In other words, do you have scientific proof that a full vaccine schedule is safe. Until then, you're just sciency not scientific.
Yes we do have proof that a full vaccine schedule is safe. Scientific proof in the form of a measurably healthier populace and hugely reduced incidence of disease with barely any measurable side effects despite copious studies about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.
At a U.S. average rate of 12 cents/kWh = $120/MWh = $0.12 million/GWh, that's $947 million worth of power generated per year.
The amount of revenue it generates is not the important consideration in determining if a project is economically worthwhile. It has to generate enough PROFIT to repay the investment. If the annual cost of generating your $947M worth of power is $947M then the project will never repay the cost of building the plant. The cost of generation plus the amortized cost of building and maintaining the plant has to be less than the amount of revenue brought in. Presumably the amount charged for a unit of electricity is high enough to pay for the plant during it's lifetime but you cannot just assume that to be true. In the case of a plant that cost $4.7B to build and is expected to last for 40 years you would need to bring in $117.5M in revenue each year in excess of the operating costs just to break even. And that is ignoring inflation, financing costs, etc. So by your example that electricity had better not cost more than $829.5M per year (actually less than that in the real world) or the plant will not break even.
So now that the costs of research and experimentation have been paid for by the public, "entrepreneurs" are willing to step up and reap the profits?
Yes! That's one of the great things about publicly funded research. It turns into economic benefit to society via technology transfer. You seem to be implying (wrongly) that this is somehow a bad thing. Quite the contrary - this is a hugely awesome good thing. It means tons of jobs, new industries, and economic benefits all around. It grows the economy. Keeping the research in a lab where it will do nothing would be pretty much the worst thing you could do with it because then you spend the money and get no economic benefit either.
That's the good thing about Netflix. I avoid the crap, and there are no commercials. I get some of that with a DVR too, but I have to FF past the ads.
One of my gripes is, when I watch an old show on METV, a bunch of it is chopped off because there are more commercials than when the show originally came out.
My crazy, "deplorable" side almost hopes there is a conflict just so I can say "Trump's people are revolting!".
To iterate is human, to recurse, divine. -- Robert Heller