3d printed bee hives, seriously cool
3d printed bee hives, seriously cool
It seems like everybody is looking for ways to reduce their food bill, a quick look at the price of organic vegetables at your local grocery store might make you want to run the other way or compromise, but growing organic produce doesn't have to be a chore. How do you find the best bang for you buck when choosing what to grow? By following these basic gardening tips and frugal gardening ideas.
The victory garden movement began during the first world war, and proved itself just as critical during the second. We can directly trace the modern popularity of home vegetable gardening to this century old beginning.
During this period in time most farming was done primarily by hand, as tractors and other agricultural machinery were still in their infancy. A combination of war decimated farm land across Europe, and the enlistment or draft of many farm workers, left much of the world on the verge of massive food shortages. This potential crisis was averted after the creation of the US National War Garden Commission in 1917, under the leadership of Charles Pack.
Are you eager to start a home garden, but restricted by a small yard or apartment living? There are several quick and easy ways to maximize your available space, and get your garden growing in no time. We’ll outline a few small garden design ideas below to help you get started.
The most important part of organic vegetable gardening is to do things as naturally as possible. Growing your own food helps to reduce pollution caused by large scale farming and distribution. Another benefit is complete control over the chemicals used to bring your vegetables from the field to the table. With perks like a reduced carbon footprint, chemical free harvesting, and keeping a little more cash in your pocket, why not get started today?
There are numerous ways the things we toss out every day can take on new life, and easily dozens more uses just for the items on this list. Look around your house, get inspired, and in no time you’ll come up with even more upcycling ideas to implement around your own home.
This is amazing.
Hate to say this but the debt AS A NUMBER does NOT matter.
The debt as a percentage of GDP is all that matters!
The US has a GDP of 15,000,000,000,000 or 15 Trillion, and to be as bad as Greece was in 2009 we would need a debt of 19.05 trillion, or as bad as they are projected to be in 2013 the US debt would have to rise to 25.5 Trillion! We are no where near that at all! At the time of this article it was 8.3 trillion so it would have to more than triple for our situation to be comparable to Greece as a percentage of GDP.
That being said we should grow our debt slower then we grow our GDP in non-recession years, and faster during recessions but in general keep things at a reasonable ratio to GDP. The main problem with this argument is it can't be explained simply to people who don't understand economics and is not as scary as a debt clock, or not as ignorant as ignoring the debt all together.
That being said we should always be reducing / or ceasing the growth of the debt in any period with relatively low unemployment, with the understanding it is okay to spend during recessions. This is coming from a fiscal conservative mind you, but should be common sense to any economics undergraduate and idealistically anyone with a basic understanding of macro economics.
As someone who researches and works in computing, I'm going to have to say that is ridiculous notion. There is no way a computer network would ever spontaneously develop the ability to make a decision. Individual computers send packets back and forth and other computers route the data to the next router and so on till it reaches its destination. That is all the internet is.
It is kind of like traditional mail, where information "packets" or letters are sent from courier to courier till it reaches it's destination.
The internet is no more likely to become sentient then the postal system.
An amusing but interesting story, comes from a philosophy site where the author is somewhat direct about writing it. I don't think it was meant to be read as truth but to get people to think which hopefully it did.
According to threatpostâs article âoeWiFi Protected Setup Flaw Can Lead to Compromise of Router PINs,â your router with Wi-Fi Protected Setup enabled can allow hackers to take less time to figure out the PIN number and have access to your wireless network. The article suggests that Wi-Fi Protected Setup reveals too much information when it tries to authenticate a device, consequently allowing hackers to take less time in acquiring the valid Wi-Fi Protected Setup PIN number through brute force hacking method.
Iâve always disabled my Wi-Fi Protected Setup, because it seems to me as if itâs just another door for hackers to break into. When reading the piece from threatpost, Iâm glad that Iâd been careful all along. Most modern routers provide Wi-Fi Protected Setup feature so users donât have to actually enter long WPA2 passphrase for connecting to a wireless network, because Wi-Fi Protected Setup requires a PIN number (e.g., 1234567âŠ).
I would be critical of the economics of this piece but there are none. Just the rantings of a crazy person.
From the article:
We tend to think that people are either honest or dishonest. In the age of Bernie Madoff and Mark McGwire, James Frey and John Edwards, we like to believe that most people are virtuous, but a few bad apples spoil the bunch. If this were true, society might easily remedy its problems with cheating and dishonesty. Human-resources departments could screen for cheaters when hiring. Dishonest financial advisers or building contractors could be flagged quickly and shunned. Cheaters in sports and other arenas would be easy to spot before they rose to the tops of their professions.
But that is not how dishonesty works. Over the past decade or so, my colleagues and I have taken a close look at why people cheat, using a variety of experiments and looking at a panoply of unique data sets窶"from insurance claims to employment histories to the treatment records of doctors and dentists. What we have found, in a nutshell: Everybody has the capacity to be dishonest, and almost everybody cheats窶"just by a little. Except for a few outliers at the top and bottom, the behavior of almost everyone is driven by two opposing motivations. On the one hand, we want to benefit from cheating and get as much money and glory as possible; on the other hand, we want to view ourselves as honest, honorable people. Sadly, it is this kind of small-scale mass cheating, not the high-profile cases, that is most corrosive to society.
Obviously this doesn't count engineering programs at reputable universities.
If I had found this my first year of college life would have been so much easier
AFK Applications is a mobile application development company specializing in Android development. We believe in building applications that unlock your phones' potential for human development.
Last time I checked regulatory failures were not products of capitalism but of a mixed economy. Considering this is pretty transparent agenda pushing I'm certain very few economists would take it seriously. Fraud and collusion can occur in any economic system though I would argue they occur more the more centrally planned an economy is, at least according to all the times centrally planning has ever been attempted. The alternatives to capitalism usually result is mass starvation, black markets (AKA capitalism), or collapse / revolution.
What we should focus on is preventing fraud and making capitalism more stable by bringing back the separation of commercial banking (the primary source of money creation) and Investment banking (AKA bringing back Glass-Steagull). This combined with a strong social safety net (reverse income tax on the poor in place of welfare, keeping food stamps, something resembling universal healthcare in place of our military spending, etc), a flatter simpler tax structure that gets rid of tax breaks on real estate, and other things, while lowering taxes overall and broadening the tax base, and an independent federal reserve that can only conduct monetary policy via government bonds not private security markets or mortgage markets would go a very long way to decrease business cycle fluctuations, or the frequency and severity of recessions. If we separated traditional banking from investment banking again too big to fail would cease to exist, and most of the issues involving collusion between private and public entities would end.
To say that modern economics today is the efficient market hypothesis and people are rebelling against traditional economics is pretty stupid. I know I was exposed to a very wide variety of ideas and concepts from many competing sets of economic ideals. The important thing is the ideals don't matter and we should be looking deeper into empirical economics because that is reality. But to say there is a prevailant economic set of ideas at all is ignorant, and having disagreement in the field doesn't mean it is wrong, anymore than having disagreement in psychology, political science, or philosophy. When we look at more empirical economic theories however there is little to no disagreement.
Economists Daron Acemoglu of MIT and James Robinson of Harvard University have another answer: Politics makes the difference. Countries that have what they call âoeinclusiveâ political governments â" those extending political and property rights as broadly as possible, while enforcing laws and providing some public infrastructure â" experience the greatest growth over the long run. By contrast, Acemoglu and Robinson assert, countries with âoeextractiveâ political systems â" in which power is wielded by a small elite â" either fail to grow broadly or wither away after short bursts of economic expansion.
âoeYou need political equality to underpin economic prosperity,â says Acemoglu, the Elizabeth and James Killian Professor of Economics at MIT. More specifically, he says, economic growth depends on widespread technological innovation. But widespread innovation is only sustained where countries promote rights, giving more people the incentive to invent things.
And while Acemoglu and Robinson have documented this thesis during roughly 15 years of joint research, now, in their new book, Why Nations Fail, released this week by Crown Publishers, they look more closely than ever at the collapse or stagnation of countries that lack these inclusive political systems.
Elites, Why Nations Fail asserts, resist innovation because they have a vested interest in resisting change â" and new technologies that create growth can alter the balance of economic or political assets in a country.
âoeTechnological innovation makes human societies prosperous, but also involves the replacement of the old with the new, and the destruction of the economic privileges and political power of certain people,â Acemoglu and Robinson write. Yet when elites temporarily preserve power by preventing innovation, they ultimately impoverish their own states.
Easy free app!