Slashdot Mirror

Because it is actually pretty hard to have enough people within walking distance to support most types of stores beyond the corner quickie-mart.
It is not a problem in Europe, and neither in the few countries I visited in Africa and Asia.

that is going to need market area of a couple tens of thousands of people, and it is rather difficult to get that many people to fit within walking distance of anything.
You have never been in a civilized city, like Paris?

There are supermarket chains that have a store every 200m ... and the big stores you find in commercial areas or outside of every medium sized town, like Leclerce or Auchon etc. have a "miniAuchon" etc. all over the city.

And then again: every majour road is chained with "Arabs" selling food and groceries and "Chineese" selling vegetables and fruit. I live in Menilmontant when I'm in Paris. In a radius of 100m around my place are probably close to 50 food shops, and 3 or 4 of them are super markets. In a radius of 400m I most likely have 20 super markets.

Three times a week thee is a market on the middle "lane" of the road. The road is "three lanes", a double lane in each direction, and a center lane for pedestrians, lined left and right with trees. There is market so often and you can buy everything from eggs via cheese and oysters and fish to vegetables and simple clothing and a USB charger ... or second hand cloth.

https://www.google.co.th/maps/...

Use street view and walk around. It is full with small shops, restaurants, small hotels, coffee bars and: super markets!

Here's something you could educate us both on, how much would this algae based fuel cost?
Why don't you google it?

https://www.google.co.th/searc...

1.7 million hits ...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/... an easy read, you can even download the PDF.

And as you are so fond of youtube videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Or if you like a more official one: https://www.energy.gov/eere/bi...

So, your defense is your ignorance?
Ignorance about what? If you disagree with me or I say something wrong: it is not a lie. Period. The previous discussion is/was not about anything where anyone could be proven wrong ... so there is neither ignorance nor lies. You believe that more nuclear power will help to solve problems by producing bio fuel. I pointed out that this is unrealistic regarding prices. If you want to go deeper into that: simply calculate how many gallons fuel the US needs per day. Then calculate how many nuclear reactors you need to build to produce it ...

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs... 391.71 million gallons (or about 9.33 million barrels per day).

Energy per gallon: 370kWh ... so you need to produce 390e6 * 379kWh in electricity per day and convert it loss free into synthetic fuel. That means 6158750000 kW power capacity. That is 6159 GW. With a capacity of roughly 0.5GW per reactor, you need 12,000 new reactors. Good luck finding places for only a fraction of them in the US. But I guess I made somewhere a mistake, so feel free to divide it by a factor of 10 :P

The source code was already released. https://github.com/zk00006/OpenTLD

There are a few more repos here.. http://www.google.co.th/#q=site:github.com+%22TLD+is+an+algorithm+for+tracking+of+unknown+objects%22&hl=en&filter=0

There have been maybe ten stories about Google becoming "the evil empire" in the last week or so. It seems to be a running theme right now.

Still, Google keeps introducing interesting new technologies based on open standards, open sourcing them, and making data export easy (just look at the new "dowload all" button on GDocs)[1]. Heck, Wave is open source and federated. This doesn't even begin to cover the help they give FOSS through GSoC.

Once Google stops being open and starts trying to lock me into their services, then I'll be worried (until then I just make regular back-ups). As it is, they recommend Firefox and IE8 alongside Chrome, rank Flickr above Picasaweb in search, and support Mac and Windows more than they do their own ChromeOS. Can we seriously compare that to IBM's deeds of the 70s or MS's in the 80s and 90s?

People keep screaming "evil," but I'm just not seeing it. They're being "nicer" than any other multi-billion corp I can name.

If you want to know about marine mammal hydrodynamics, Dr. Frank E. Fish is the guy to go to. Take a look at some of his papers available for free download from Google Scholar:
http://scholar.google.co.th/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=FE+Fish&btnG=Search

This guy has been at it for ages. He was my primary source of information for a research paper on the subject of hydrodynamics and energetics back in 2000 for a marine mammalogy class in my final year of university. Glad to see he is still at it, because his work is brilliant. There's some pretty high level physics involved (fluid mechanics is not for the faint of heart ;) ), but still worth checking out.

I tried to install Ubuntu last week, and it couldn't figure out my monitor's resolution of 1920x1200 (a pretty common one nowadays). After an hour of fiddling with it and reading technical advice on forums, I accidentally crashed the X-server and could no longer log into the GUI.

thanks for the link and ... no problem
i can read german :)

link for you:
http://www.google.co.th/search?hl=en&q=repulsine&m eta=

Moderate this comment
Negative: Offtopic Flamebait Troll Redundant
Positive: Insightful Interesting Informative Funny

Moderate this comment
Negative: Offtopic Flamebait Troll Redundant
Positive: Insightful Interesting Informative Funny

The same link here with extra words highlighted.

The same link here with extra words highlighted.

Public Sevice Advertisement
HELP FREE JIM! YOU COULD BE NEXT

1. Here it says that "In spite of the substantial evidence to the contrary, several prominent public and private health organizations--and researchers themselves--have ignored, downplayed, or dismissed any relationship between diet and children's behavior."
2. Here it talks about the carcinogenic effect of Ritalin.
3. This is the section directly on sugar and ADD (I note that they don't include caffeine here). They say "Several other studies attributed some changes in motor activity and attentiveness to consumption of sugars. In a study of 12 psychiatric inpatients with a variety of disorders, Conners and his colleagues found that sucrose or fructose caused a significant increase in total motor activity. Wender and Salient found that sucrose reduced attention to tasks in children with ADHD, but not in other children. Both of those studies were funded by the sugar industry." This information is in direct conflict with the point of their paper, which is to show the effect of food additives on ADD. Sucrose is derived from cane and beet sugar, but not corn syrup. "The bottom line on sugars is that few good studies--of sufficient duration, with sizable numbers of subjects, and employing child-by-child analyses--have been conducted." They go on to recommend that children eat less sugar no matter the result.
4. This one reports CHADD dismissing any dietary involvement in ADD and strongly support the use of drugs in all cases. Maybe this is where you got your information? The report also says that 20% of CHADD's budget comes from Novartis, the maker of Ritalin. Hmmmm...
5. This list of foods that they recommend avoiding is given
   • caffeine (colas and other soft drinks, coffee, tea)
   • chocolate
   • corn products (and corn sugar and corn syrup) (Note: high-fructose corn syrup, which is what most sweetened foods use now)
   • Dairy foods
   • Eggs
   • Nuts
   • Oranges and grapefruits
   • Soybeans and tofu
   • Wheat
6. This shows double blind studies covering diet and ADD. 4-6 of them showed no change while 16-18 of them showed some or significant change.
7. 11 Non-double blind studies all show significant relationship between diet and behavior.

Again, this was a report mostly about food allergies and food dyes on ADD, so it did not directly address the issue of sugar. It did talk quite a bit about caffeine, however, and said that the sugar issue is still in the air with few good studies to prove anything either w

1. Here it says that "In spite of the substantial evidence to the contrary, several prominent public and private health organizations--and researchers themselves--have ignored, downplayed, or dismissed any relationship between diet and children's behavior."
2. Here it talks about the carcinogenic effect of Ritalin.
3. This is the section directly on sugar and ADD (I note that they don't include caffeine here). They say "Several other studies attributed some changes in motor activity and attentiveness to consumption of sugars. In a study of 12 psychiatric inpatients with a variety of disorders, Conners and his colleagues found that sucrose or fructose caused a significant increase in total motor activity. Wender and Salient found that sucrose reduced attention to tasks in children with ADHD, but not in other children. Both of those studies were funded by the sugar industry." This information is in direct conflict with the point of their paper, which is to show the effect of food additives on ADD. Sucrose is derived from cane and beet sugar, but not corn syrup. "The bottom line on sugars is that few good studies--of sufficient duration, with sizable numbers of subjects, and employing child-by-child analyses--have been conducted." They go on to recommend that children eat less sugar no matter the result.
4. This one reports CHADD dismissing any dietary involvement in ADD and strongly support the use of drugs in all cases. Maybe this is where you got your information? The report also says that 20% of CHADD's budget comes from Novartis, the maker of Ritalin. Hmmmm...
5. This list of foods that they recommend avoiding is given
   • caffeine (colas and other soft drinks, coffee, tea)
   • chocolate
   • corn products (and corn sugar and corn syrup) (Note: high-fructose corn syrup, which is what most sweetened foods use now)
   • Dairy foods
   • Eggs
   • Nuts
   • Oranges and grapefruits
   • Soybeans and tofu
   • Wheat
6. This shows double blind studies covering diet and ADD. 4-6 of them showed no change while 16-18 of them showed some or significant change.
7. 11 Non-double blind studies all show significant relationship between diet and behavior.

Again, this was a report mostly about food allergies and food dyes on ADD, so it did not directly address the issue of sugar. It did talk quite a bit about caffeine, however, and said that the sugar issue is still in the air with few good studies to prove anything either w

1. Here it says that "In spite of the substantial evidence to the contrary, several prominent public and private health organizations--and researchers themselves--have ignored, downplayed, or dismissed any relationship between diet and children's behavior."
2. Here it talks about the carcinogenic effect of Ritalin.
3. This is the section directly on sugar and ADD (I note that they don't include caffeine here). They say "Several other studies attributed some changes in motor activity and attentiveness to consumption of sugars. In a study of 12 psychiatric inpatients with a variety of disorders, Conners and his colleagues found that sucrose or fructose caused a significant increase in total motor activity. Wender and Salient found that sucrose reduced attention to tasks in children with ADHD, but not in other children. Both of those studies were funded by the sugar industry." This information is in direct conflict with the point of their paper, which is to show the effect of food additives on ADD. Sucrose is derived from cane and beet sugar, but not corn syrup. "The bottom line on sugars is that few good studies--of sufficient duration, with sizable numbers of subjects, and employing child-by-child analyses--have been conducted." They go on to recommend that children eat less sugar no matter the result.
4. This one reports CHADD dismissing any dietary involvement in ADD and strongly support the use of drugs in all cases. Maybe this is where you got your information? The report also says that 20% of CHADD's budget comes from Novartis, the maker of Ritalin. Hmmmm...
5. This list of foods that they recommend avoiding is given
   • caffeine (colas and other soft drinks, coffee, tea)
   • chocolate
   • corn products (and corn sugar and corn syrup) (Note: high-fructose corn syrup, which is what most sweetened foods use now)
   • Dairy foods
   • Eggs
   • Nuts
   • Oranges and grapefruits
   • Soybeans and tofu
   • Wheat
6. This shows double blind studies covering diet and ADD. 4-6 of them showed no change while 16-18 of them showed some or significant change.
7. 11 Non-double blind studies all show significant relationship between diet and behavior.

Again, this was a report mostly about food allergies and food dyes on ADD, so it did not directly address the issue of sugar. It did talk quite a bit about caffeine, however, and said that the sugar issue is still in the air with few good studies to prove anything either w

1. Here it says that "In spite of the substantial evidence to the contrary, several prominent public and private health organizations--and researchers themselves--have ignored, downplayed, or dismissed any relationship between diet and children's behavior."
2. Here it talks about the carcinogenic effect of Ritalin.
3. This is the section directly on sugar and ADD (I note that they don't include caffeine here). They say "Several other studies attributed some changes in motor activity and attentiveness to consumption of sugars. In a study of 12 psychiatric inpatients with a variety of disorders, Conners and his colleagues found that sucrose or fructose caused a significant increase in total motor activity. Wender and Salient found that sucrose reduced attention to tasks in children with ADHD, but not in other children. Both of those studies were funded by the sugar industry." This information is in direct conflict with the point of their paper, which is to show the effect of food additives on ADD. Sucrose is derived from cane and beet sugar, but not corn syrup. "The bottom line on sugars is that few good studies--of sufficient duration, with sizable numbers of subjects, and employing child-by-child analyses--have been conducted." They go on to recommend that children eat less sugar no matter the result.
4. This one reports CHADD dismissing any dietary involvement in ADD and strongly support the use of drugs in all cases. Maybe this is where you got your information? The report also says that 20% of CHADD's budget comes from Novartis, the maker of Ritalin. Hmmmm...
5. This list of foods that they recommend avoiding is given
   • caffeine (colas and other soft drinks, coffee, tea)
   • chocolate
   • corn products (and corn sugar and corn syrup) (Note: high-fructose corn syrup, which is what most sweetened foods use now)
   • Dairy foods
   • Eggs
   • Nuts
   • Oranges and grapefruits
   • Soybeans and tofu
   • Wheat
6. This shows double blind studies covering diet and ADD. 4-6 of them showed no change while 16-18 of them showed some or significant change.
7. 11 Non-double blind studies all show significant relationship between diet and behavior.

Again, this was a report mostly about food allergies and food dyes on ADD, so it did not directly address the issue of sugar. It did talk quite a bit about caffeine, however, and said that the sugar issue is still in the air with few good studies to prove anything either w

1. Here it says that "In spite of the substantial evidence to the contrary, several prominent public and private health organizations--and researchers themselves--have ignored, downplayed, or dismissed any relationship between diet and children's behavior."
2. Here it talks about the carcinogenic effect of Ritalin.
3. This is the section directly on sugar and ADD (I note that they don't include caffeine here). They say "Several other studies attributed some changes in motor activity and attentiveness to consumption of sugars. In a study of 12 psychiatric inpatients with a variety of disorders, Conners and his colleagues found that sucrose or fructose caused a significant increase in total motor activity. Wender and Salient found that sucrose reduced attention to tasks in children with ADHD, but not in other children. Both of those studies were funded by the sugar industry." This information is in direct conflict with the point of their paper, which is to show the effect of food additives on ADD. Sucrose is derived from cane and beet sugar, but not corn syrup. "The bottom line on sugars is that few good studies--of sufficient duration, with sizable numbers of subjects, and employing child-by-child analyses--have been conducted." They go on to recommend that children eat less sugar no matter the result.
4. This one reports CHADD dismissing any dietary involvement in ADD and strongly support the use of drugs in all cases. Maybe this is where you got your information? The report also says that 20% of CHADD's budget comes from Novartis, the maker of Ritalin. Hmmmm...
5. This list of foods that they recommend avoiding is given
   • caffeine (colas and other soft drinks, coffee, tea)
   • chocolate
   • corn products (and corn sugar and corn syrup) (Note: high-fructose corn syrup, which is what most sweetened foods use now)
   • Dairy foods
   • Eggs
   • Nuts
   • Oranges and grapefruits
   • Soybeans and tofu
   • Wheat
6. This shows double blind studies covering diet and ADD. 4-6 of them showed no change while 16-18 of them showed some or significant change.
7. 11 Non-double blind studies all show significant relationship between diet and behavior.

Again, this was a report mostly about food allergies and food dyes on ADD, so it did not directly address the issue of sugar. It did talk quite a bit about caffeine, however, and said that the sugar issue is still in the air with few good studies to prove anything either w

1. Here it says that "In spite of the substantial evidence to the contrary, several prominent public and private health organizations--and researchers themselves--have ignored, downplayed, or dismissed any relationship between diet and children's behavior."
2. Here it talks about the carcinogenic effect of Ritalin.
3. This is the section directly on sugar and ADD (I note that they don't include caffeine here). They say "Several other studies attributed some changes in motor activity and attentiveness to consumption of sugars. In a study of 12 psychiatric inpatients with a variety of disorders, Conners and his colleagues found that sucrose or fructose caused a significant increase in total motor activity. Wender and Salient found that sucrose reduced attention to tasks in children with ADHD, but not in other children. Both of those studies were funded by the sugar industry." This information is in direct conflict with the point of their paper, which is to show the effect of food additives on ADD. Sucrose is derived from cane and beet sugar, but not corn syrup. "The bottom line on sugars is that few good studies--of sufficient duration, with sizable numbers of subjects, and employing child-by-child analyses--have been conducted." They go on to recommend that children eat less sugar no matter the result.
4. This one reports CHADD dismissing any dietary involvement in ADD and strongly support the use of drugs in all cases. Maybe this is where you got your information? The report also says that 20% of CHADD's budget comes from Novartis, the maker of Ritalin. Hmmmm...
5. This list of foods that they recommend avoiding is given
   • caffeine (colas and other soft drinks, coffee, tea)
   • chocolate
   • corn products (and corn sugar and corn syrup) (Note: high-fructose corn syrup, which is what most sweetened foods use now)
   • Dairy foods
   • Eggs
   • Nuts
   • Oranges and grapefruits
   • Soybeans and tofu
   • Wheat
6. This shows double blind studies covering diet and ADD. 4-6 of them showed no change while 16-18 of them showed some or significant change.
7. 11 Non-double blind studies all show significant relationship between diet and behavior.

Again, this was a report mostly about food allergies and food dyes on ADD, so it did not directly address the issue of sugar. It did talk quite a bit about caffeine, however, and said that the sugar issue is still in the air with few good studies to prove anything either w

1. Here it says that "In spite of the substantial evidence to the contrary, several prominent public and private health organizations--and researchers themselves--have ignored, downplayed, or dismissed any relationship between diet and children's behavior."
2. Here it talks about the carcinogenic effect of Ritalin.
3. This is the section directly on sugar and ADD (I note that they don't include caffeine here). They say "Several other studies attributed some changes in motor activity and attentiveness to consumption of sugars. In a study of 12 psychiatric inpatients with a variety of disorders, Conners and his colleagues found that sucrose or fructose caused a significant increase in total motor activity. Wender and Salient found that sucrose reduced attention to tasks in children with ADHD, but not in other children. Both of those studies were funded by the sugar industry." This information is in direct conflict with the point of their paper, which is to show the effect of food additives on ADD. Sucrose is derived from cane and beet sugar, but not corn syrup. "The bottom line on sugars is that few good studies--of sufficient duration, with sizable numbers of subjects, and employing child-by-child analyses--have been conducted." They go on to recommend that children eat less sugar no matter the result.
4. This one reports CHADD dismissing any dietary involvement in ADD and strongly support the use of drugs in all cases. Maybe this is where you got your information? The report also says that 20% of CHADD's budget comes from Novartis, the maker of Ritalin. Hmmmm...
5. This list of foods that they recommend avoiding is given
   • caffeine (colas and other soft drinks, coffee, tea)
   • chocolate
   • corn products (and corn sugar and corn syrup) (Note: high-fructose corn syrup, which is what most sweetened foods use now)
   • Dairy foods
   • Eggs
   • Nuts
   • Oranges and grapefruits
   • Soybeans and tofu
   • Wheat
6. This shows double blind studies covering diet and ADD. 4-6 of them showed no change while 16-18 of them showed some or significant change.
7. 11 Non-double blind studies all show significant relationship between diet and behavior.

Again, this was a report mostly about food allergies and food dyes on ADD, so it did not directly address the issue of sugar. It did talk quite a bit about caffeine, however, and said that the sugar issue is still in the air with few good studies to prove anything either w

BTW, you might want to take a look at what Google has to say about romanization wo o. In particular, the first hit says, "The Romanization is "o", but some people use "wo" instead."