thats a great idea. presumably a 3-5 second delay in retrieval of a search result could be translated into less available cores for processing. and based on all the data they capture it should be fairly straightforward to calculate this. so peak energy utilization hits, shut down cores, customers have a bit of delay and voila. they likely do this already but to a degree that is probably unnoticeable to most people.

great comment. I would add that another benefit of being "longterm" in a company is that you can also start to think longterm. for example, planning large (or even being part of) projects that take years to build and that see impact for much longer. there is some satisfaction in knowing you helped play a part to build something big and useful. of course, it goes without saying that as an employee one always has to think about themselves and not be taken advantage of, but what i'm saying is that it is not all bad. related: the longer you are at a company, if you are good performer, people start to trust you and your opinion on important matters. it doesn't matter what your position is in the food chain.

good luck! check out this provision in the TPP: http://www.international.gc.ca... Prevents governments in TPP countries from demanding access to an enterprise’s software source code.

try looking at jobs in the medical profession or medical research. i'm pretty sure our director does 100hrs a week easily. mind you he once told me that because his wife didn't book dinner reservations on a saturday night that meant he could work instead (and that made him happy). more relevant: a game company i worked at people ate and slept sometimes for weeks on end at work. personally i didn't last long on that schedule but that's me. it's not a great life but that's IMO. lots of people do this type of work week. some seem to not be the worst for wear for it either.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/1... The article this abc story is based on.

1. i didnt say it was, that's why it is in quotes. of course it isn't autonomous, its totally blind, but the metaphor usually works. evolutionary literature abounds with anthropomorphic language, but most people get that because its a useful way to communicate. anyways, we humans, we do make decisions, and what right do we have to introduce or delete species at will? I would argue that it is something that should be discussed more before we do not this mindless bs jurassic park stunt . this is an example of: "we can" therefore "we should". I don't think the first predicates the second. 2. i agree with you. we are probably in the midst of a massive extinction event right now (the 6th major one to occur), there was a good article on this in Nature in the last couple months. as gould has said, we could nuke the planet and nature wouldn't care ("care": thats a metaphor), life would go on. we'd be dead of course, but thats inconsequential to the machination that is nature and evolution. 3. this is a wooly mammoth we are talking about, not a recently killed off species.why waste time to resurrect a wooly mammoth? how about trying to preserve the biodiversity that we have now instead of wasting time on recreating the bloody Flinstones! at the very least if we restored a carrier pigeon that would have a bit more merit. my guess is this just a massive advertisement for some other business plan they have, like cloning your dog or cat. but again, it doesn't seem to make sense to me to. If we are able to recreate species going extinct and then introduce them back into their environment why wouldn't they just go extinct again? shouldn't we just fix the problem? i don't think we disagree here!

it's unethical because we are bringing back an animal that has gone extinct. What purpose is there in doing this? what gives us the right to "override a decision" that nature made many thousands of years ago? It isn't even a "real" mammoth, because contextually it will not be brought up nor living in the same environment in which it went extinct. if they splice in bits of extant elephants for missing genomic bits its even less a mammoth, although superficially it may still look like one. Its just a circus sideshow. and if the "scientific" point to doing this were to reintroduce mammoths into the wild, how would that upset ecosystems if it were successful? my cynical scientist hat says this is just headlining grantsmanship.