Slashdot Mirror

far more accurately it is about cheap water.

Too bad potable water doesn't grow on trees. Or fall from the sky.

The problems with potable water are entirely self-made. People want to live where there isn't enough, or political borders prevent people from moving away from areas where there isn't enough to areas where there is enough. Anyone or any corporation exploiting lack of cheap water can only do it because of these two things.

So for example having a nuclear plant close to a desalination plant. The nuclear plant can use the waste water from the desalination plant, so you recover the energy that the nuclear plant would otherwise us to pump water.

You have that backwards. You can use the waste heat from the nuclear plant (about 2/3 of the energy it produces) to drive thermal evaporative desalination at a lower electrical cost than reverse osmosis. Unfortunately people have this irrational hangup over the word "nuclear" and don't want to drink water desalinated via heat from a nuclear plant, even if it's less radioactive than natural fresh water sources. So we needlessly throw away 2/3 of the energy our nuclear and fossil fuel plants generate in the form of waste heat.

ummm... RTFA I said "50,000 people in the US alone have died from Cdiff in the last 10 years." In my more recent post, I point out that in 2011 alone, there were 500,000 cases of CDI, so in 10 years, that would be 5,000,000 cases of CDI. So my ballpark number of 50,000 deaths was a fatality rate of about 1%. Put down your crack pipe and step away from the keyboard... http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news...

Furthermore, I know that in 1999 there were very few CDI, but the cases and fatalities rose dramatically over the last 17 years, and between 2006 and 2016 the deaths were between 8,000 and 29,000 per year, see here: http://slideplayer.com/slide/3... This easily adds up to over 50,000 deaths between 2006 and 2016, so again, I think you need to leave off whatever you have been smoking for a while.

Furthermore, you might want to educate yourself a bit instead of talking out of your ass about things which you are clearly ignorant "If infections had a 60% death rate I would be probably dead 20 times now." NO RTFA, PRE ANTIBOITCS MOST SERIOUS INFECTIONS WERE FATAL...

Quoting from this article: https://www.healthychildren.or...

"Before antibiotics, 90% of children with bacterial meningitis died. Among those children who lived, most had severe and lasting disabilities, from deafness to mental retardation.
Strep throat was at times a fatal disease, and ear infections sometimes spread from the ear to the brain, causing severe problems.
Other serious infections, from tuberculosis to pneumonia to whooping cough, were caused by aggressive bacteria that reproduced with extraordinary speed and led to serious illness and sometimes death."

For more fun reading, you can see how mideval medicine was during WW1, which was pre antibiotics https://www.omicsonline.org/op...

Here is a good example of such an advert.

Here is a cool slide with detailed specs about this flying machine.

Here is a cool slide with detailed specs about this flying machine.

Here is a cool slide about this.

Here is a cool slide anout this.

Grab it here.

I'm surprised fair use is even being argued here. 20 years ago we wouldn't have argued over fair use. There's far right, far left, and then there was Slashdot, YRO informing the greater /. public at large about how laws were being created to change the legality of things we loved the most, hacking, figuring out how stuff worked.

When Bill Clinton brought forth the DMCA ALL of us banded together for the fight. We picked it apart, tried telling all of our family and friends (whom most of the time just stared back at us slackjawed with expressionless faces) go contact your senator! Write a letter! We lost that one, but those early days of slash are what formed my opinions for a long time to come. Open source wasn't just a license, it was a license for freedom of expression and derivative works.

Unfortunately I see knucklheads on this site now that have no clue about what this site is anymore. Maybe it's not the same, no more cowboyneal, cmdrtaco. Hell, I even miss Michael and his shitty submissions. Hey, we're still here though. A lot of people here are from long ago, and we mustn't forget that as shitty as the alt-right racists are, this is a derivative work. Yes, we hate how it's being used, but it's a derivative work none the less and that freedom MUST be defended.

To those claiming it isn't fair use, how was this fair use? Because it is derivative. I can't think of anything more vile than seeing my creations entwined in a orgy of bestial romance, but even vile works deserve to be protected under the 4 rules of copyright exception. Pepe falls under derivative, plain and simple.

You can also see a slide show she used in her thesis defence below. Much shorter read.

http://slideplayer.com/slide/4...

Most of that gold, diamonds and ivory was stolen by the British in the 18th-19th centuries (see map) and is exploited by Australia to this day. The UK has a concept of the "Commonwealth of Nations" that still report to the Queen.

It is interesting to read about the earlier kingdoms on that continent. Open your mind, just because you believe something doesn't make it true. There's a place in India that had indoor plumbing about 5000 years ago. Societies fail, technology is lost only to be rediscovered centuries later.

The oldest known city predates the Egyptians by 5000 years.

I've got some feedback to point you toward, NotDrWho.

It's a good thing you appear to like feedback. Hope you like receiving it as well...

The style of classroom you describe is used extensively by the University of Oklahoma School of Computer Science after a bunch of research. Several years worth of studies essentially found that the lower performing students in those groups would later take individual exams and score roughly half a letter grade higher than those who didn't work in those group projects... follow up studies attributed this gain mostly to being forced to be in proximity to the already-successful students. The already-successful students ALSO BENEFIT from the system, showing a notable jump in their own individual exam scores, but, more importantly, showing a significant jump in their individual *retention* of information a year later, attributed to not only having to learn the material but attempting to teach the material. The situation is pretty much loathed by the already-successful students, but the data has been repeated year after year that it is better for nearly all the students in the environment, both the top performers and the bottom performers. Moreover, over several years of exposure, a peer pressure effect builds up, and you get more and more students actively participating in the later years.

Right.... if it's so good why don't they do the same for the school sports teams? I propose that schools put this to the test: make sure that any given sports team is not made up of the best. Mix in the lowest and middling performers with the best athlete. Only one top athlete per team.

If you want to learn more, the term you should Google is "Readiness Assurance Tests"... these are tests that students take twice, once as a group and once as individuals, and your score is the average of the group and the individual. You can also take a look at these links: https://ccistudentcenterblog.w... http://slideplayer.com/slide/4... https://www.ou.edu/idp/teamlea...

Careful perusal of those studies display that the control used was not... well... stupidly "controlled". They measured the performance of students who were in mixed-ability groups, and students in solo assignments, but they did not measure the performance of top students who were *not* in mixed-ability groups; i.e. putting all the top students in one group. And that's just *one* problem with the studies you linked to.

Like every other social science study, it is obvious from reading just a few paragraphs of each study to see that they tailored the study to confirm the PC acceptable methods they want to use.

Can we say confirmation bias? I *knew* we could ;-)

I've got some feedback to point you toward, NotDrWho.
The style of classroom you describe is used extensively by the University of Oklahoma School of Computer Science after a bunch of research. Several years worth of studies essentially found that the lower performing students in those groups would later take individual exams and score roughly half a letter grade higher than those who didn't work in those group projects... follow up studies attributed this gain mostly to being forced to be in proximity to the already-successful students. The already-successful students ALSO BENEFIT from the system, showing a notable jump in their own individual exam scores, but, more importantly, showing a significant jump in their individual *retention* of information a year later, attributed to not only having to learn the material but attempting to teach the material. The situation is pretty much loathed by the already-successful students, but the data has been repeated year after year that it is better for nearly all the students in the environment, both the top performers and the bottom performers. Moreover, over several years of exposure, a peer pressure effect builds up, and you get more and more students actively participating in the later years.

If you want to learn more, the term you should Google is "Readiness Assurance Tests"... these are tests that students take twice, once as a group and once as individuals, and your score is the average of the group and the individual. You can also take a look at these links:
https://ccistudentcenterblog.w...
http://slideplayer.com/slide/4...
https://www.ou.edu/idp/teamlea...