Jump to content

servant74

Board Member
  • Posts

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

servant74 last won the day on September 22 2011

servant74 had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Name
    Jack
  • Company
    SycamoreTechnology
  • Job Title
    Retired
  • City & State
    Clarksville TN
  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Computers, energy, basically retired but have eclectic interests

Previous Fields

  • Company Type
    Vinyl & Digital Shop

Quick Company Info

  • Equipment
    Hobby cnc... retired. Not looking

servant74's Achievements

Drive By Register

Drive By Register (1/6)

1

Reputation

  1. If it makes commercial sense, businesses would be investing in it. The higher the ROI, the more gets invested until the point of diminishing return turns the ROI. Several of the incentives around the nation to entice getting more efficient lighting or HVAC has been driven by private local monopoly power companies. They determined the cost of adding generation capacity, and the cost of the money was cheaper to help the customers be more efficient than adding additional capacity. In TN the TVA is the electric power generation pseudo government agency and local distribution is local companies, but rates are basically TVA dictated cost + local distribution costs (and profit, expenses, etc). TVA has a power buy back program, basically they will purchase 'green power' for a bit more than they sell it to you, because they have a mandate to have x% green power and they haven't met that. They have a fair amount of nuke, hydro, some solar, some wind, some 'methane' power (methane digester at sewage plants near Memphis I think), but mostly coal. They shut down building nuke plants years ago (remember, in the '70s or so when nukes were bad?), but are not restarting those projects (some of which were fairly far along) but are starting new nuke projects at different locations. If it made economic sense in $/kwh for the power companies, including TVA, they would be coating our freeways with solar cells (or other waste land that has no other economic use). It seems like the best use of solar is for 'off grid' where there is a significant cost of connecting to the grid. I am not totally opposed to Govt 'investing' in technology. NASA has generated so many spin offs that have generated MUCH more economic activity than it cost us to fund NASA over the years (much medical research, materials like Teflon, many epoxies, ceramics, and so much more). But basic research where the probability of ROI starts 30 to 50 or more years out, IMHO, is reasonable for government research monies. 10 to 30 years companies like the OLD AT&T, IBM, etc could afford to do, many companies can and do afford research in the 5-10 years realm, and even this forum/industry group is doing and funding R&D in the 3-5 year realm! Having people invest individually requires a pretty high ROI. It makes economic sense for individuals to change out high use light bulbs from incandescent to fluorescent or LED. I remember my Dad's in the '60s changing from incandescent to fluorescent in the engineering areas (Bell Helicopter, large areas of engineers and draftsmen ... and they replaced all the fluorescent bulbs every 2 years. The quality of light for the professionals effected productivity thus the bottom line.. I worked for a company (large oil) that did not want to consider a ROI on projects that didn't pay off 100% in 6 months for internal projects, or 18 months for outside projects. (Sometimes their methods of computation were pretty esoteric and didn't make sense to common folk like me, but they were consistent and still found plenty to invest in.) Most of us would love to invest in projects like that with a high probability of payout. Solar doesn't meet even a relaxed 18 month ROI let alone what companies need to get to invest their capital. So why do it? Governments are doing it because constituents (solar industry, tree huggers, etc) drive it, and the public isn't arguing because they have some desire for it (just not enough to invest THEIR money). Personally, I would like to feel assured I would get a 5 year ROI (20%/years) to put solar on my house. That is where I see my threshold for this kind of investment is. That includes a 5% sinking fund because most solar equipment is shipped with a 20 year life and will have to be replaced every 20 years as the expected life span (or be able to financially even if you don't do it). Again, just my perspective.
  2. Blacklisting is a nasty game. The easiest blacklisting to do is by IP address, but by domain blacklisting is possible too. There are large blacklists maintained by various groups. Some require a second mortgage on your first borns soul to get off of (figuratively, of course). Others automatically roll off if there are no reports after 1, 3 or 6 months. If you want to find out about it, google "blacklist internet" and there is more than you want to read on the subject. My domain got blacklisted because someone cracked in and send a few million spam email. It doesn't take long on a good connection, an hour or so. It took the better part of a year to get off the automatic and 'automatic on, manual off' sites. AOL (of course) was the hardest to get off their nasty list. But it can be, and has been, done. If your upstream ISP will help, you can clear up things faster than without their help. Doing blacklist retribution is a loosing game. Be better than that, provide a superior product at a reasonable price, and have their customer come to you because you stay as above the frey as possible! This kind of winning may take a little longer, but the satisfaction (and bottom line) will be so much sweeter for it.
  3. I have worked for good bosses, bad bosses, micromanager bosses, power hungry bosses. Customers run the same gambit as bosses do. Working for folks that don't respect you and believe you bring worth to their organization can really make life miserable. All that said, we are all 'independent contractors', whether we draw a paycheck or not. We sell our services and talents to someone else for what we need. Even if it is a lumberjack cutting down trees, farmers in the fields, geeks doing their thing, etc, etc. One boss didn't like it when I told him I hired him (the company we both worked for) so I could outsource things I didn't like doing (sales, marketing, facilities management, dealing with retail customers). in return for a consistent supply of usually interesting projects, and a compensation package ($$, benefits, vacation, etc) that we both deem fair. If a company cannot make money from your efforts, you need to be out the door for their sake. If you don't feel the same about them, you need to 'lay them off' too! Our choice is in determining: is the income worth what we get out of the situation, where pay is part of it. If it is, we stay, if not we go. I have helped 'fire customers' before. You know the ones that consume 20 hours of effort, pay for little or none of it, never refer other customers, and pass the word you are less than top notch. Getting rid of 1 or 2 of those can help the bottom line. The same for suppliers that make life hard and sell basically commodity goods or services. If they take to much time or 'karma' to deal with them, they need to be fired. (Read the book "Nuts!" about management, customers and employees in the startup of Soutwest Airlines.) I have fired bosses before. I have fired suppliers and customers. None of it is easy, but if they take more than you receive, you must for 'personal survival', and if you know your business, you will be rewarded for it. All that said, I think you are smart to find a new 'source of nickles' before cutting this one off. Remember, you are in charge of your situation, your attitude, and your response to others. Make the best of them for your sake and others! Once you can, you need to fire this boss, and either start 'consulting', or your own shop, or something to keep you happy at what you do. Life is to short. I hope this helps a little.
  4. It does seem to be 'industry standard' to extend minimal credit to almost anyone. But I agree, it would be good. In the 'old days', and I am sure some do it, many invoices are 2% discount if paid in 10 days, net 30 days, and a 2%/mo carrying charge on after 30 days. The problem I remember having it people taking 30 days or more to pay and still taking the 2% for prompt payment as well.
×
  • Create New...