Slashdot Mirror

Well, if they can solve the problem of rebar, then buckling won't be an issue anymore, since rebar has proper strength from the get-go. I don't really see a slower machine being much better than a fast one. The overall size of the machine depends on what you fabricate, not how fast you go about it (within reasonable limits of concrete pouring).

If I were to make a product out of it, I'd have a 5 axis machine with switchable heads. One head with an extra axis or two that can put out, restrain, cut and spot-weld rebar. Another head that can print concrete. With a 5 axis machine you can trivially print concrete on the surface of rebar going in any orientation. Heck, if they use a mix with fast initial cure, they can do skin/infill just like plastic 3D printers do, except that the infill uses a less viscous mix that self-levels. This could dramatically speed it up, and you wouldn't need to print around every piece of rebar but only some trickier ones.

This could be very much a breakthrough technology, but it would need a bit of capital investment as those machines wouldn't be cheap. For very large constructions, instead of X-Y-Z linear actuators you would need a delta-style arm. Even a big one could be assembled on site and print an entire highway overpass in a week or two, starting with nothing but a hole in the ground.

Well it made for one hell of a funny 5 minutes on Monty Python

http://youtu.be/iSmkqocn0oQ

Reading Rainbow's New Theme Song with LeVar Burton: http://youtu.be/VQ34s3kKFDY

This one sounds sad enough: http://youtu.be/14BmN_ejBX4
Beautiful, too.

I'm afraid it's a bit more complicated than that. The EEG is currently running a dangerous experiment with a highly questionable outcome with the German electricity grid and economy. The EEG guarantees renewables a feed in tariff for the next 20 years to make them appear to be ultimately profitable and forces grid operators to take the electricity regardless of the spot price on the market. Grid operators must then direct traditional plant operators to either throttle or even shut down to keep the grid stable. This is a problem for plant operators, because power plants are forced to operate fewer hours of days (prolonging amortization and ROI on the plants) and are forced to operate less efficiently (you know what it takes to restart a brown coal plant?). And what if at some point the grid operators get too much energy from renewables? More than they need or can handle? Well, they transport or even sell it abroad to the Netherlands, Poland and the Czech republic, often at negative prices, meaning, Germany pays for the others to take it. But if you remember, they were forced to purchase the energy at the renewable plant operator (solar or wind) at a guaranteed feed-in tariff, so who's paying for the difference? Partly the taxpayer and partly the grid operator, which is also one of the a reasons why their profit margins are thinning. Sooner or later this mix will blow up into German's faces, but unfortunately, the political elite is in denial, the media fuels an anti-corporatist frenzy and common people who don't know much about how electricity generation, distribution and marketing work such as yourself are simply taken along for the ride on the lie train. And unfortunately, there is no practical solution in sight.

Right, so you chose the wrong word that had the biggest negative weight behind it.

As for Islamophobia, I doubt many people are actually frightened by Islam, more that they are disgusted by its attitudes to other religions, women, apostasy and homosexuality. So again, wrong word. Anti-Islamic would probably the best description, and many people would not feel that being described as such would be negative, for the reasons stated above. I'm wouldn't really class myself as an anti-theist - believe what ever makes you happy, but if your beliefs start impinging on the rights of people who don't toe the line, then fuck you, you deserve no respect.

So we're left with prejudice and bigotry. Prejudice may or may not apply - it was preconceived, but not necessarily without reason. As for bigotry, it is a result of somebody's prejudices which as I said may not be a valid argument for him being a bigot.

It's quite possible that Muslims were mentioned because Catholics priests (who may want to remove any mention of themselves from google) would fall under the paedophile group already mentioned.

Of course ChrisQ may be a complete Islamophobe (who shakes with fear when he sees a niqab), and loathes every Muslim, no matter how moderate, but to base that opinion on a line of text is just plain stupid. What's certain is that both yourself and myself are both being prejudiced against ChrisQ as we've been passing preconceived comments on him without knowing the actual basis of his comments.

It's only plausible if you know nothing about RF.

Wireless energy? Sure. Wireless energy in the format they promise? You can't cheat physics, dude, even if you throw half a million dollars at it.

Powercastco's wireless sensors in approximately credit card sized format need a dedicated Powercastco's 3W power caster station to operate.

Sure, you can also power it from a phone - if you get your phone pretty close and strap an antenna twice the size of an iPhone on it.

Ob. Robin Williams link.

We've already had the first animatronic president:

http://youtu.be/LFAXnCFk5IE?t=...

Since then, they've all been robots.

The plant actually SURVIVED a magnitude 9.0 earthquake.

No, it was damaged by the earthquake and that damage was a major contributory factor to the subsequent meltdowns. Here are two NHK documentaries about what happened. They are 45 minutes each but well worth watching if you want to know what the current understanding of the disaster is:

http://youtu.be/vpA0TOgB9-o
http://youtu.be/ayW4mC1o8CQ

The plant actually SURVIVED a magnitude 9.0 earthquake.

No, it was damaged by the earthquake and that damage was a major contributory factor to the subsequent meltdowns. Here are two NHK documentaries about what happened. They are 45 minutes each but well worth watching if you want to know what the current understanding of the disaster is:

http://youtu.be/vpA0TOgB9-o
http://youtu.be/ayW4mC1o8CQ

http://youtu.be/4bCyIAsSid8

There have been machines made to do things like play a real trumpet with some success. I suppose that a robot could play a violin or other instruments as well. So [far] it is a question of how well a robot can play.

Exhibit A: Squarepusher x Z-MACHINES - Music For Robots...

Those things are not really very good for learners I think. The screen is very small and there are some fairly big limits on their inputs that can easily result in damaged hardware.

I'd suggest that the OP looks at buying some second hand CROs (cathode ray oscilloscopes) on eBay. They are incredibly cheap in the US, well under $50 much of the time. You can get really nice, well built equipment from manufacturers like Hitachi, Tek, Kikusui, Hameg, Iwatsu, HP and Philips. Even basic ones will be 20MHz or more and have good input protection.

The only down side is that unless you manage to buy a lot of identical models you will need to give different instructions for each one, but that could be turned into an advantage. They all work basically the same way, so once you have explained the common controls the kids should be able to figure the rest out on their own or with minimal help. Back at college we had a load of different scopes and never had any problems with basic operation. The big physical controls are much easier than digging through on-screen menus too.

Here's a good video on how to buy used scopes on eBay: http://youtu.be/lZfbo-2sd1A

I know this might be out of your budget but have you looked at the MSO-19? http://linkinstruments.com/mso... I designed this as the training tool for my high school FIRST Tech Challenge team the Landroids. They used it to develop various custom Arduino & AtTiny based sensor array for their award winning robots http://youtu.be/zRwOx2D7WCw . I packed enough features in the scope so the students can tackle FPGA based projects when the need arises. It was selected by NASA as the only oscilloscope on the ISS. And the best part is that it is designed and manufactured in NJ/PA to demonstrate that affordable manufacturing can still exist in the USA.

Bah! THe french beat the Krauts by 20 years. Choeck out the 1994 Citroën Xantia Activa. Here's a video demonstrating the active suspension, plenty more race footage on Youtube http://youtu.be/kQT7IMHvBGo

Tyson has lectured, screamed, went before congress and actively lobby's that if we increased NASA's budget by a penny on the dollar just 1% would get man to mars.

And he's against private manned space missions, course he says low earth orbit/satellites/iss could be private but only a government can take on the budget and risk of manned exploration of space

Neil deGrasse Tyson On NASA & Federal Budget (MUâ¦: http://youtu.be/jcdDb-cbadw

Neil deGrasse Tyson at UB: What NASA Means to Ameâ¦: http://youtu.be/RQhNZENMG1o

Neil deGrasse Tyson on Apollo missions and NASA funding: http://youtu.be/LWqNYiCAbsY

Neil DeGrasse Tyson: "Elon Musk's SpaceX Won't Get Us To Mars: http://youtu.be/gW74vsCNQtc

Tyson has lectured, screamed, went before congress and actively lobby's that if we increased NASA's budget by a penny on the dollar just 1% would get man to mars.

And he's against private manned space missions, course he says low earth orbit/satellites/iss could be private but only a government can take on the budget and risk of manned exploration of space

Neil deGrasse Tyson On NASA & Federal Budget (MUâ¦: http://youtu.be/jcdDb-cbadw

Neil deGrasse Tyson at UB: What NASA Means to Ameâ¦: http://youtu.be/RQhNZENMG1o

Neil deGrasse Tyson on Apollo missions and NASA funding: http://youtu.be/LWqNYiCAbsY

Neil DeGrasse Tyson: "Elon Musk's SpaceX Won't Get Us To Mars: http://youtu.be/gW74vsCNQtc

Tyson has lectured, screamed, went before congress and actively lobby's that if we increased NASA's budget by a penny on the dollar just 1% would get man to mars.

And he's against private manned space missions, course he says low earth orbit/satellites/iss could be private but only a government can take on the budget and risk of manned exploration of space

Neil deGrasse Tyson On NASA & Federal Budget (MUâ¦: http://youtu.be/jcdDb-cbadw

Neil deGrasse Tyson at UB: What NASA Means to Ameâ¦: http://youtu.be/RQhNZENMG1o

Neil deGrasse Tyson on Apollo missions and NASA funding: http://youtu.be/LWqNYiCAbsY

Neil DeGrasse Tyson: "Elon Musk's SpaceX Won't Get Us To Mars: http://youtu.be/gW74vsCNQtc

Tyson has lectured, screamed, went before congress and actively lobby's that if we increased NASA's budget by a penny on the dollar just 1% would get man to mars.

And he's against private manned space missions, course he says low earth orbit/satellites/iss could be private but only a government can take on the budget and risk of manned exploration of space

Neil deGrasse Tyson On NASA & Federal Budget (MUâ¦: http://youtu.be/jcdDb-cbadw

Neil deGrasse Tyson at UB: What NASA Means to Ameâ¦: http://youtu.be/RQhNZENMG1o

Neil deGrasse Tyson on Apollo missions and NASA funding: http://youtu.be/LWqNYiCAbsY

Neil DeGrasse Tyson: "Elon Musk's SpaceX Won't Get Us To Mars: http://youtu.be/gW74vsCNQtc

Because of this: http://youtu.be/3AJCdmW33fM

Housing prices are skewed due to an hyper-inflating housing bubble. it isn't a good measure.

Income levels has spiked up, for a good chuck of time, it was averaging around 35K/yr, it is now 51K.. income has been climbing (heck in the 40's and 50's, we made 25Kish).

As for retirement.... Raising minimum wage will drive inflation. As companies have to pay more to their employees, they will raise the prices of their goods to compensate. Know what isn't compensated? Your 401K. Any money you have sitting aside in a savings account. Of the cost of living goes up, the money you saved for retirement doesn't. The comfortable lifestyle you plan to have tomorrow is really a poor lifestyle due to inflation.

And what do you mean most people working today don't seem to expect the same standard of living as their parents??? are they mad? My parents didn't have computers and cell phones in their day... They were out, but cost thousands. A cell phone was 5K or so? We went out to eat twice a year at most. We went to see 1-2 movies a year... Home movie collection? yeah right! A VHS tape of Star Wars cost hundreds... The only place that could afford them was rental places that made their money back over time. They had one TV with antenna, and on a good day there was 4 channels. And their parents... Well my Dad tells me stories when they got electricity, and his 'rich uncle' had a new fangled 'TV'... for his parent's anniversary, he and his brothers gave them... Indoor plumbing!

And it's not just the cost of things going down, but how we earn more over time (see my note above on average income over time). Income Mobility has been ignored. Check this out: Is there Income Mobility in America?

Ohhh.... A sarcasm detector. That's a REALLY useful invention.

At the rate humanity is going, our species will be gone in 100 years. If we somehow pull ourselves together & survive beyond that, then we'll still have about 600,000,000 more years to prepare for the end of living conditions on earth. Of course, it's possible a meteor or volcano could produce another extinction level event before then. All we need though, is 1 habitable planet IN our galaxy, to escape the coming extinctions. This planet doesn't even need to exist for another 400,000 years or maybe even 600,000,000 years. By then, we can move there and watch the earth comes to its end. If the planet is new, then we just wait about 3,500,000,000 years, when the Andromeda galaxy collides with the Milky Way. That'll be fun. It may also expose us to new civilizations and habitable planets that could be nice to visit 'til the heat death of the universe comes along.

But first, we have to survive to that point in order to worry about whether we can go anywhere else anyway. At the rate humanity's going though...

No hacker/cracker/big business/three-letter-agency is that desperate.

Not even evil aliens: "Oh God, Sir, they are still naked!"

As others are saying, do you serve at the temperature you brew at?

You should take some time to read about the case. Do you think the jurors found in favor of the victim because they thought it was a great way to make a buck and they wanted to help her out?

Check out what 3rd degree burns to the groin look like: http://justicebeforecharity.or... (I would say this is NSFW, and I have no idea why I can't find a better source for this.) I would say that most people don't appreciate the seriousness of the case because they don't really understand the injury.

There is an interview with Stella's daughter here: http://youtu.be/i2ktM-lIfeQ

Probably this one:

http://youtu.be/wSF82AwSDiU

This video started a journey for me that is still continuing. Anyone interested should check out the links in the About text on the YouTube page.

The correlation reported in the study was relative to hours per week (actually, the square root of that), so although there were no full abstainers there were some participants who watched less porn than others.

Thunderf00t summed up a lot of arguments why this is futile and/or a scam in this video. From the summary:

Solar FREAKIN roadways is a nice idea, but then again is a pogostick that can hop to the moon as a cheap, reusable trans-orbital vehicle.

Is it plausible though. Well it basically proposes the union of 3 or 4 technologies. LED lights, solar panels, and glass roads.

Glass really isn't a feasible material to make roads out of.

1) its too expensive. Just coating the US road system with roads would cost many times the federal budget.
2) Its too soft. Even with a textured surface for traction, it will wear away too quickly. Dirt on roads is basically small rocks, which are generally much harder than glass. Imagine taking a handful of dirt and rubbing it [on] a window. Now imagine doing that with the wheels of a 20 ton tractor/trailer.
3) I have doubts about the physical properties of the glass to take the load and mechanical heat stress required of a road making material.

Solar panels under the road is a bad idea from the start. If they are under the roads, they are hard to maintain. They will have reduced light from parked cars etc. They are fragile. Not really congenial to the conditions you are likely to get on a road. In many ways building a shed over the road, or just having solar panels by the side of the road is a far better idea. However the power transport really isnt practical. One of the most efficient ways to transport electricity around is as high voltage AC. However to build those lines would probably double the cost of any construction. To bury the cables is even more expensive.

LEDs for variable road marking have been partially implemented. They are usually only cost effective in dynamic traffic management systems. For most roads its utterly pointless as the road markings almost never need to be altered. These LED are usually not easy to see (especially in full daylight when the solar panels are meant to be generating power).

However solar powered roadways has generated well over a million dollars for Julie and Scott Brusaw (a therapist and an engineer).

I'm still on the fence as to if they are just delusional dreamers or (now millionaire) con artists. A lot of this looks like just direct 'what if' daydreaming, but then you get the part of the promotional video where they are shoveling ground up coloured glass into a wheelbarrow, while narrating that they use as many recycled materials as possible in this project. It's very difficult to not see that as a direct lie. They must know full well that they did not use any of that material in the construction of their glass tiles.

(And yes, he's got a PhD in chemistry, so I trust he might have more of a clue or two what happens when a truck hits the road than an electrical engineer(!)...)

Considering even the most culturally illiterate westerners have heard of Bruce Lee, Jet Li, and probably Chun-Li, I have no idea where the notion that the Chinese can't pronounce 'L' came from.

Oh wait, yes I do.

Damn you, Jean Shepherd.

Was the year 2000 so long ago?

http://youtu.be/GYSfncB4peU?t=...

.

Autonomous vehicles are being promoted for exactly their ability to allow the driver to do non-driving functions (like read, eat, nap, or other things).

Ahh, fair enough... I think we're further away from *that* than we are autodriving cars where you still have to pay attention.

The car you describe, I could put my kids into and it would take them to school, without my even being there. I think we're more than a few years away from THAT. :)

But they are not intended to allow flight in close formation

Actually, you might be surprised, there are such autopilots... First, the autopilot on most modern airliners can do a Cat III autoland in zero/zero conditions. You don't touch the controls until you're doing a go around. The autopilot controls the airplane all the way to landing and roll out, usually to below 80 kts, then you can take over.

The Navy's airplanes have autoland to the carriers, which is even harder than to a fixed airport (since the runway is moving in three dimensions).

And finally, some Air Force autopilots have master/slave modes, you can link them to fly in formation long distances together. The master has the plan and the slaves simply hold position on the master.

And they will quite happily fly you into the ground when they fail. Or fly you to the point you stall and then fall to the ground.

Some will, others will not. The example in the small airplane with the Garmin G1000 will because it lacks FADEC and autothrottles. An Airbus A320 won't let you do that, it will prevent you from pitching over 33 degrees up or down and rolling more than 67 degrees left or right. It will also prevent a stall by overriding your throttle setting and applying more power, then lowering the nose if you continue to try to pull back the stick and full throttle has been reached.

You can manually override that in an emergency (that was added after the Paris Airshow crash many years ago of the A300, that was pretty stupid on the pilot's part) so that you can roll it upside down if you really need to, but normally the plane won't let you do that.

As for flying into the ground, modern airliners won't let you do that anymore either, besides having GPWS (ground proxomity warning system) among other things, the new ones will override the controls and avoid a collision with the ground unless in landing mode and facing an airport. Check out the G550 and G650 some time, they have amazing computer systems in the cockpit, including FLIR and CCIP, along with verbal callouts.

http://youtu.be/lJIvsI9AtIs
This one is a Gulfstream G450 landing at Aspen

http://youtu.be/DR9lyAM2YNE
This one shows taxing on the ground and other shots of the enhanced vision system.

If you watch the first one, you'll see a small circle with a line coming out of the sides and top, that is the CCIP (continuously computed impact point), that shows where the airplane will go if you do nothing else, so long as it is on the end of the runway, that is where you'll end up. If it is showing lower or off to the side or in the trees, you better do something else.

----------------

Side note: Yes, I'm aware that at the end, you pointed out that the autopilot in a C172 and a G1000 is not a great example because that system is stupid. Yes it is, because of the cost of development in small airplane aviation is just sad and behind the times, that is what you get. Because of the large number of cars built, billions can be spend on development, I would expect anything put out by Ford, Nissan, etc. would have the type of autodrive that a Gulfstream or Airbus has...

Autonomous vehicles are being promoted for exactly their ability to allow the driver to do non-driving functions (like read, eat, nap, or other things).

Ahh, fair enough... I think we're further away from *that* than we are autodriving cars where you still have to pay attention.

The car you describe, I could put my kids into and it would take them to school, without my even being there. I think we're more than a few years away from THAT. :)

But they are not intended to allow flight in close formation

Actually, you might be surprised, there are such autopilots... First, the autopilot on most modern airliners can do a Cat III autoland in zero/zero conditions. You don't touch the controls until you're doing a go around. The autopilot controls the airplane all the way to landing and roll out, usually to below 80 kts, then you can take over.

The Navy's airplanes have autoland to the carriers, which is even harder than to a fixed airport (since the runway is moving in three dimensions).

And finally, some Air Force autopilots have master/slave modes, you can link them to fly in formation long distances together. The master has the plan and the slaves simply hold position on the master.

And they will quite happily fly you into the ground when they fail. Or fly you to the point you stall and then fall to the ground.

Some will, others will not. The example in the small airplane with the Garmin G1000 will because it lacks FADEC and autothrottles. An Airbus A320 won't let you do that, it will prevent you from pitching over 33 degrees up or down and rolling more than 67 degrees left or right. It will also prevent a stall by overriding your throttle setting and applying more power, then lowering the nose if you continue to try to pull back the stick and full throttle has been reached.

You can manually override that in an emergency (that was added after the Paris Airshow crash many years ago of the A300, that was pretty stupid on the pilot's part) so that you can roll it upside down if you really need to, but normally the plane won't let you do that.

As for flying into the ground, modern airliners won't let you do that anymore either, besides having GPWS (ground proxomity warning system) among other things, the new ones will override the controls and avoid a collision with the ground unless in landing mode and facing an airport. Check out the G550 and G650 some time, they have amazing computer systems in the cockpit, including FLIR and CCIP, along with verbal callouts.

http://youtu.be/lJIvsI9AtIs
This one is a Gulfstream G450 landing at Aspen

http://youtu.be/DR9lyAM2YNE
This one shows taxing on the ground and other shots of the enhanced vision system.

If you watch the first one, you'll see a small circle with a line coming out of the sides and top, that is the CCIP (continuously computed impact point), that shows where the airplane will go if you do nothing else, so long as it is on the end of the runway, that is where you'll end up. If it is showing lower or off to the side or in the trees, you better do something else.

----------------

Side note: Yes, I'm aware that at the end, you pointed out that the autopilot in a C172 and a G1000 is not a great example because that system is stupid. Yes it is, because of the cost of development in small airplane aviation is just sad and behind the times, that is what you get. Because of the large number of cars built, billions can be spend on development, I would expect anything put out by Ford, Nissan, etc. would have the type of autodrive that a Gulfstream or Airbus has...

Summary not entirely accurate.

That's because the president (Gabe) needs plausible deniability.

+1 to this comment.

I have a 1 year old that loves reacting to a camera. Hold out a cellphone and she smiles. Hold out a lense and she stops doing whatever and watches the camera. With Glass I have captured tons of videos with her in unique and interesting ways that tell a better story of her. Try recording this with a regular camera:
http://youtu.be/scEJJK7cxGg
or here:
http://youtu.be/jDLCQJluNAQ

The problem is that it took me nearly two weeks to get adjusted to Google Glass. My battery regularly lasts all day without charging after the XE17 upgrade. I live in South Carolina and have NEVER run into anyone wearing them in the wild. Still, nobody ever seems uncomfortable around them and there has only been a handful of people actually ask me about them.

Now if they would get the video calls back into them....

+1 to this comment.

I have a 1 year old that loves reacting to a camera. Hold out a cellphone and she smiles. Hold out a lense and she stops doing whatever and watches the camera. With Glass I have captured tons of videos with her in unique and interesting ways that tell a better story of her. Try recording this with a regular camera:
http://youtu.be/scEJJK7cxGg
or here:
http://youtu.be/jDLCQJluNAQ

The problem is that it took me nearly two weeks to get adjusted to Google Glass. My battery regularly lasts all day without charging after the XE17 upgrade. I live in South Carolina and have NEVER run into anyone wearing them in the wild. Still, nobody ever seems uncomfortable around them and there has only been a handful of people actually ask me about them.

Now if they would get the video calls back into them....

Nah. That shit only happens in comic books.

More realistically? Think "Emil" from Robocop.

http://youtu.be/tjEdLuqK1RQ

Also, there is no reason why we shouldn't have the advantages without the drawbacks. That's what the so called eurosceptics are after, not necessarily a complete departure from the EC, but a saner Europe that concerns itself with important transborder stuff, and leaves the rest to national governments.

In that case they really don't seem to have even the most fundamental understanding of how trade agreements work. For example, they oppose employment regulation, but the only way other countries will agree to have free and unrestricted trade is if our companies don't have an economic advantage due to being able to treat their workers poorly. So either we accept regulation and benefit or we come out of the EU and suffer.

If we want to sell goods to Europe we will need to meet EU safety standards. Otherwise a British company wanting to sell to France has to pay for French safety approval separately. And then Germany approval, and Spanish approval and so on. So we agree on an EU standard, and the sceptics start moaning that we had it imposed on us and it costs our companies money to make "safe" products etc.

We want a Europe with economic, legislative and military collaboration, but without the legislation on the curvature of bananas

Ah, the old curved banana nonsense story. This video explains a few of them, but I'll save you the bother of watching. The rules on bananas were already UK law, because we didn't want to eat over-ripe bananas and that was the international de-facto standard that all the banana producing countries worked to. The EU just decided to formalize it as a regulation that all states should adopt, to make it easier and cheaper for banana sellers to sell to EU countries. I am not aware of any country where meeting this regulation actually involved a change in the law.

Interestingly our laws on banana ripeness, which we wrote and which pre-date the EU regulation but a long, long time and which the EU actually adopted from us effectively, is now counted towards the percentage of EU laws on our books by sceptics.

Frankly, if you believe the "straight bananas" story you really need to stop reading newspapers and come to an informed opinion based on the facts, not the nonsense you have read.

Also, there is no reason why we shouldn't have the advantages without the drawbacks. That's what the so called eurosceptics are after, not necessarily a complete departure from the EC, but a saner Europe that concerns itself with important transborder stuff, and leaves the rest to national governments.

In that case they really don't seem to have even the most fundamental understanding of how trade agreements work. For example, they oppose employment regulation, but the only way other countries will agree to have free and unrestricted trade is if our companies don't have an economic advantage due to being able to treat their workers poorly. So either we accept regulation and benefit or we come out of the EU and suffer.

If we want to sell goods to Europe we will need to meet EU safety standards. Otherwise a British company wanting to sell to France has to pay for French safety approval separately. And then Germany approval, and Spanish approval and so on. So we agree on an EU standard, and the sceptics start moaning that we had it imposed on us and it costs our companies money to make "safe" products etc.

We want a Europe with economic, legislative and military collaboration, but without the legislation on the curvature of bananas

Ah, the old curved banana nonsense story. This video explains a few of them, but I'll save you the bother of watching. The rules on bananas were already UK law, because we didn't want to eat over-ripe bananas and that was the international de-facto standard that all the banana producing countries worked to. The EU just decided to formalize it as a regulation that all states should adopt, to make it easier and cheaper for banana sellers to sell to EU countries. I am not aware of any country where meeting this regulation actually involved a change in the law.

Interestingly our laws on banana ripeness, which we wrote and which pre-date the EU regulation but a long, long time and which the EU actually adopted from us effectively, is now counted towards the percentage of EU laws on our books by sceptics.

Frankly, if you believe the "straight bananas" story you really need to stop reading newspapers and come to an informed opinion based on the facts, not the nonsense you have read.

As to what I said, your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

I did not say that the only difference between case 1 and case 2 was an increase in CO2. I said that that is what the article implied.

You are so clueless that you're agreeing with me and yet deluded into thinking you're arguing against me.

My point is that the two cases are not the same. My point is that they are saying they only differ in that there is a marginal amount of additional CO2 and that there is no other possible reason for the fires.

As to prevarication, you remind me of this sketch comedy:
http://youtu.be/KrJYpActs7g?t=...

Using the same fancy word over and over again that is clearly out of place in your personal lexicon is not a way to impress any but the simple.

Last consoles I owned was Atari 2600 & original Nintendo.
I've been a PC gamer since.

Plating Ghostbusters & Chuck Yeager's Flight Simulator with joystick on a Tandy 1000 EX was fun, and all the free games in basic that came in the old magazine "Home and Office Computing" which became Family Computing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Computing)

Anyhow I've never been a fan of consoles and while that might make me in the minority I still wished they'd ported to PC.

Someone posted the entire last of us game with no commentary and all the cutscenes a perfect play through I enjoyed like a movie.

I did same for Beyond Two Souls, entire game posted as a movie in HD with zero commentary. 8 hours 41 minutes straight through.
http://youtu.be/9qolJTsmmWA

There is a dislike in Facebook. You un-friend or hide the individual item. The people asking for dislike on facebook are asking for censorship. They want it to be harder to find things they don't personally like. I hope Facebook doesn't do it.

Not sure if troll... They do do that, automagically Now you know, and knowing is half the battletoads.

https://youtu.be/GnBbhXBDmwU

I have never in my life heard the word "thugs" used as a "code for black people". That's the honest truth.

You do know that a big part of something being "code" for something else is so that people who don't know the code don't realize it's being used that way, right?

Unless you've been living under a rock, it is probably not true that you have never heard the term used this way. I think it is true that you are fairly ignorant about racism/racial code words in present day America, which I would hope would lead you to do a cursory search about the topic instead of posting your ignorance as some kind of an anecdotal evidence, bafflingly rewarded with upvotes.

It's one thing to not be up to date on, say, who will be offended if you don't address them as "zhe", but you seem to be pro-actively denying the existence of a fairly widespread racial slur, which seems indefensible to me.

Or if the embedding doesn't work

The truth about Planned Parenthood's International aims from the very beginning.

Link: http://youtu.be/JcniyQYFU6M

In the upper-left corner of the first third of the video Brian Lunduke is in the background.
He is a professional computer game maker (you can buy his Linux software from places like Steam), and has been giving speeches at LinuxFest for years. They range from entertaining to hilarious, as he is known to make a compelling speech proving one side of a controversial statement (like how Linux sucks more than anything else at all-- yes, he gives that speech at Linuxfest), and then he spends the next allotment of time successfully proving the opposite side (and successfully use the same evidence to support both sides). He's also gone a crony from SuSE (whom he is seen talking to in this video) and a crony from Red Hat/Fedora who have been known (especially in his 2013 speech) to serve to add to the entertainment value.
Brian Lunduke's announcement of LinuxFest Northwest plans
Why Linux Sucks (As Usual), 2013, Why Linux Does Not Suck (Not even a little), 2013 (unfortunately, the videos' view of the slides is sub-par)
Why Linux Sucks and Why Linux Does Not Suck (2012)
If anyone sees him at a fest, be sure to buy him a cookie. I, some random stranger posting as Anonymous Coward, can personally attest that he likes that.

http://youtu.be/VRNwqVU70Q8/

Why not just call it an unrequested global energy surplus?

Language like this makes me want to engage in an involuntary personal protein spill...

Now the bank robber doesn't have a gun and can't threaten people.

Until he kicks your ass and takes back his gun

Not if I first pistol-whip him with his own gun, or beat him to death with his own shoes.