Protophore

Why take the effort to chop down trees to make fuel when we already produce enough cellulose from crops (corn stalks, sawdust etc) to make a lot of biofuel? It would be more cost effective to use sawdust from wood mills, corn stalks, etc (things normally seen as waste materials) to make fuel than it would be to go out and chop down trees. Not only would you have to expend a lot of energy to chop down the trees and transport them, but you would have to process them into a more usable form. I doubt it would work well to simply coat an entire tree with a fungus and wait for it to be decomposed. You would want to grind the tree up into smaller bits to increase the surface area the fungus has to grow on .

I see a lot of bad behaviours on all sides here and have to agree with many of the posters below that it may be time to jump ship to a different company. Or if the company you work for is large enough you can transfer to a different department, just get away from where you are now.

In regards to some of your points above, I think that it is often an issue that changes are made by upper management or by someone in control/power that do not make a lot of sense to everyone else. I'd suggest taking a positive and proactive approach to this situation. You can begin by approaching the individual responsible in a friendly manner and ask something along the lines of, "It was interesting how you decided to do XYZ. I want to understand your thinking here. Can you tell me why you decided to do that?" The basic idea is to get them to open up to you. They may have a very good reason for their idea that you aren't aware of. Maybe it will make perfect sense to you afterwards, or maybe their idea is sound but how they implemented it does not make a lot of sense, or could be improved. If the later is the case then you can work with them to help improve it, maybe start with, "That's a really interesting idea. Do you think that it would be helpful if we were to move the link over here to make it more visible to users?" or something along those lines.

A good technique when you have to say something negative is to make a sandwich out of it. Start with something positive, state your negative, and finish with something positive.

Shame on your manager for passing blame. IT sends a bad message to everyone. A good leader takes responsibility for their team work even if someone else screwed up. If someone is going to get fired over it, then it's a slightly different story, but for the most part a good manager is a shit shield for their employees.

Passive-aggressive = bad, unhealthy attitude It will only cause problems and you'll lose respect and friends Being a whiner= bad, you can "complain" constructively so it doesn’t come across as whining. You'll get a lot more accomplished and gain recognition/status in the process.

Decreasing team moral = bad. It's not always easy to say the right thing or be "politically correct", but if you want to be a good team member you will need to do so. You want to make change for the better, but you might be hindering the change as much as anyone else. You can be "straightforward and sincere" without bringing the team down.

This book might help you in learning to be a force of change in your company while being positive at the same time: http://www.amazon.com/Human-Factors-Project-Management-Techn...

I agree with some of the points above. Most people want to "1. Be Happy" and "2. Make Money" but not everyone needs to be promoted to feel happy or valued.

I have to disagree that "the best way to be happy is ignore the bad stuff, focus on the good stuff, and work on making everyone else happy."

You can only ignore things for so long, and making others happy will not necessarily make you happy.

There are just some places where the management is so screwed up that you're going to be miserable if you want to have any creative control or have your input considered and valued. In this instance you either have to try to change the management, which in most situations is unlikey, or find a new job.

Again, your point that he should "Refocus your energy on making you and everyone around you happy. Forget the technology - let them make the decisions" is not always the best approach in my opinion. The author mentioned that he would be ashamed to put this project on his resume. Do you think that he wants to work for a place that does an awful job and then put that on his resume? He can't ignore what the copmany is doing if he wants to put it on his resume. What kind of reputation will it give him if he has worked for years at a company that does nothing but put out crap?

I think that many of the ideas stated above work in certain situations and with certain people. But not eveyone acts and thinks the same and not everyone can live with the same kind of work environment or make the same kinds of decisions.

Any idea where this guy did his act? I woldn't imagine that he'd get a laugh anywhere he went. Although I'd guess that his act would work a lot more places now than even a couple years ago.

Your problem may also be dependent on the size of your allowable credit (credit limit on your card). If you have one major credit card, but your max credit line with that card is $5-10k you might have a problem. If you can get your credit card to raise your limit to 20k you might have an easier time with your lease. Alternatively you can open up another two credit cards each with a 10k limit to expand your available credit.

Wow, that's really dissapointing to hear, that you have to get approval for an app before you can even test it on your own phone.

Do you get the impression that this is actually a stage for them to keep out what they consider bad products or is it just a bandwith problem with their approval process?

No, my argument would be that in 155 years we'll have better alternative sources of energy. Wind and Solar are already viable alternatives, with time their cost will come down and their efficiency will go up potentially eliminating the need for fossil fuels such as coal.

Congrats Shawn! I think that Robert Frost said it best: Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both And be one traveller, long I stood And looked down one as far as I could To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair, And having perhaps the better claim, Because it was grassy and wanted wear; Though as for that the passing there Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay In leaves no step had trodden black. Oh, I kept the first for another day! Yet knowing how way leads on to way, I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-- I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference

If this was intentionally done it's all a bit disgusting. Why can't candidates try to win on merit any more? I'm tired of all the negative attacks and lies they pedal these days. I don't need someone to tell me why I shouldn't vote for the other guy, I need them to tell me why I should vote for them and then I'll make up my own mind.

Congrats! I'll pass the word around and see if I can't get some more people to sign up.

I don't think you need to keep asking for the OK to use "karma". Just go for it.

I'd have to agree with you there. No matter where he goes it's basically going to be the same.

If you look at the work place as it exists in the US, or many other countries for that matter, there is a fairly defined and constant relationship between the company and the employee. There are those companies that try to break the mold and have a different relationship, but for the most part it's fairly constant across companies and industries.

As company size increases the number of people in management also tends to increase and the upper management tends to become more and more removed from the people who are actually working with the customers and writing the code or doing the real work. The people making the big decisions know less about the situation than the guy on the front lines hence the large number of problems that arise that are satirized in the Dilbert comics.

I think you may be mistaken on ther enot being a lot of coal left:

"According to the widely accepted view, at current production levels proven coal reserves will last 155 years (this according to the World Coal Institute). The US Department of Energy (USDoE) projects annual global coal consumption to grow 2.5 per cent a year through 2030, by which time world consumption will be nearly double that of today."

From: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29919

The article goes on to say that we probably don't have 155 years of coal reserves, but it should still last for some time now, unless the rate of usage sky rockets.

"In China, text messages cost an average of 1.3 cents to send"

Pulled from: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article419.html

I thought this line was a bit staggering "...the average cost of a text message is $0.10. Last year, mobile telephone operators pulled in $50 billion in revenues just from text messaging."

$50 billion, that's a nice racket!

I have to agree that current rates are absurd considering the file size and actual cost incurred by the carriers. It would be nice if the government can slap a collusion case on them and make them send a refund to all of their customers and lower the texting rate.

It's interesting that typically as new technologies become more popular and are adopted by more and more people the costs tend to decrease. In this case however the prices have gone up. Seems counter intuitive.

Is that by design or just by random chance?

Very cool stuff. I foresee the first generation (or four) being extremely awkward and frustrating as the controls react rather slowly in comparison to the speed of your thoughts.

Also a few worrisome items in the article:

"So add that up: a wireless, remote, brain reading/writing device that can scan, interpret, and communicate with someone across the room, without them even knowing it. Connect that to the Internet... and talk about brainwashing possibilities. What if some hacker could figure out how to write viruses to people's brains? It's actually a little scary."

Dude, why do you keep trying to take a crap on my sofa? Sorry man, I got hit with the defecation virus this morning while I was downloading my kung fu lesson.

Ignore the math, just watch the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YORCk1BN7QY&feature=relat...

Thanks for the link. Looks like a promising read!

Looks like we'll find out tomorrow what they have in mind: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080909/lehman_brothers.html?.v=19

I heard about this a month or so ago on NPR. I don't see the benefit in it really. Unless they can back their currency with gold or something else it will continue to fluctuate in value with the pound.

Furthermore I can't see why people would really want to have this town's currency other than as a collectors item. You can only spend it in this particular town, and not even at all of the businesses there.

It's been said that this will help keep business (money) in town. Meaning that locals will be more likely (forced) to spend money at local businesses if they have the local currency. But why would anyone want to restrict themselves like this as a shopper? What's to stop them for refusing to accept change in the local currency or to trade it in at the bank for official British currency?

I'm not quite sure I follow your reasoning here. How does paying your employees in the town's currency allow tax evasion? You would still have to report paying them the money.

You could pay them under the table (not report it to the government) in cold hard cash using the British pound just as easily as using a local currency. I can't see how using a local currency would make it any easier.

I like the look of the new visualizer.

It's quite interesting how this has morphed from a discussion on the pay rate of a CEO being a good predictor of the success of a start-up to health coverage.

One of the interesting ideas that many of the state-based health care systems have (Sweden for example) that the US should adopt is small out-clinic centers. The centers tend to have 1-2 doctors on staff and several nurses. People can either call in for a consult or walk in to the center. If they call in, the nurse will provide treatment options over the phone when possible or either ask the patient to come into the center or send a doctor out for a home visit. The centers have been very effective at reducing cost and giving people an alternative to going to the emergency room for things that do not require emergency treatment.

While I tend to believe that private industry can do things more efficiently (cost-wise and man power required) than the government there are some things that really should be available universally, like health care. Removing the need for all of the currently uninsured people from going to the emergency room to receive care would probably save the industry a large amount of money and bring down costs significantly. I don't see private industry stepping forward to find a solution for this issue anytime soon so we'll most likely need the government to step in.

Exactly! Thanks for pointing that out, not sure how I missed it.

Brazil isn't exactly a 3rd world country, but thank you for your input. A great example or using our resources more effectively.

I asked about the feasibility of recycling plants because I can recall seeing piles of trash (plastics, paper, cans, food, etc) in Indonesia all over the place. Even right next to some of the local shrines. Locals may reuse/recycle some items but it looked like most of their trash when into these piles that were often burned at some point in time. The thick black smoke billowing off of these smoldering trash heaps was disgusting and can't be great for the peopl e or the environment.