And for me it works great in wine. Only possible glitch has been stuttering when I first enter the game, but for all I know it happens in windows as well, but I've never played it in windows.
What sits idle better for long period of time? Does toner start to clump together if you haven't printed in a month? Ink start to soak through? I go through a cartridge maybe every year, maybe two. our printer is typically regulated to map print outs on the way to somewhere I've never been.
Just because you give someone the source doesn't make it open source.
I had an old professor he used to say: If you cut off someones head they die, but just because they're dead doesn't mean you cut off their head.
like wise
If something is open source it means you distribute the source code to the end user, just because you distribute source code to the end user doesn't mean it's open source.
(please note, not all OSL require distribution to the end user)
Article mentions Android is based on Debian, so basically what has happened is apt-get was installed (and all required software) which then gives access to the entire debain ARM library.
Is this correct?
It's sad the number of responses saying this is a boot screen... maybe if you don't actually look at it, and just go: 'oh pretty text!'
My physics professor would use cables to introduce delay in detector signals, 1 foot per nanosecond delay. I always thought that was interesting as it's the same speed as the speed of light...
F = ma
an immovable object has infinite mass, m = âz, a = F/âz => a = 0 regardless of F
an irresistible force is F = âz, , a = âz/m => a = âz regardless of m
But F = âz and m = âz, a = âz/âz => a is indeterminate, ie we have no tools to answer this question.
in case things aren't displayed properly, âz is the infinity symbol
Even further though the question only really applies to our world, and thus cannot apply to God, simply because if God does exist, is not part of our world.
Once you seriously start to think about that question you do realize how stupid it is, I mean, immovable to whom? Us? to be immovable to use it would have to have an infinite mass, and unless it had infinite density it would take up infinite space. If it didn't take up infinite space, it would have infinite density, it would be infinitely small, and IIRC would have infinite gravitational pull. Infinite gravitational pull which would cause the entire universe to collapse on this infinitely small item.
Still the question can be expanded to "if X is omnipotent, can X do something they can't do." Problem is we can only come up with situations that we comprehend, that are bound to the world we know. If a being was truly omnipotent, it would be beyond our comprehension. so all in all, the question is a stupid one.
USA too, but have a look at a product called Deep creak. It's made by the same peopel as seafoam, only in an aerosole can. It works wonders, I always make sure I have a can or two around the house.
It doesn't sounds like Google is asking for less efficient chips, that's a retarded notion. Instead it sounds like Google is asking for more durable chips.
One that still operates at X% efficiency but operates at a higher ambient temperature., say 70F instead of 65F. I'm sure Google would like it better if the chips didn't produce any heat (ie 100% efficient), but that's impossible.
Still, if you want to "Go Green" and be environmentally friendly, stop viewing heat as a problem. It's better to try and reclaim some of the lost energy (heat IS energy) than it is to spend more money trying to get rid of it. ie use energy to get rid of energy.
As you say in your first line consumption doubled, but then you have doubled the number of people travelling, so passenger MPG remains the same.
I think you're misunderstanding, in both cases I am assuming the same ridership, 2 passengers. I guess it would be less ambiguous if I said, "if both people take the same car" as opposed to "if they take the same car"
What I am looking at is different from Passenger MPG, call it total MPG, community MPG, commuters MPG, whatever MPG. I'm taking into account how many vehicle are used to transport X number of people if you have a vehicle to passenger ratio of 1:1 (1 passenger per vehicle) you consume ~twice as much than a 1:2 (2 passenger per vehicle) ratio.
PMPG/num_vehicles is what I am looking at. PMPG is fine if you're looking at one vehicle and only up to it's maximum capacity. But what happens when you exceed the maximum capacity of a single vehicle? That's the question I am answering, and am attempting to show that it is more efficient to move large numbers of people and get a much lower MPG, than it is to move a much smaller number of people, with a much higher MPG.
Really? Are you sure about that? 40 miles / 2 gallons is 20mpg, sure. But you seem to be ignoring the fact that you have two passengers, so 1 person per car is still 40mpg per passenger.
How so? if two people travel 40 miles @ 40MPG and take separate cars they consume 2 gallons, if they take the same car they only consume 1 gallon. Overall consumption has doubled by them taking their own car vs carpooling.
Basically, there is a correlation between passengers and number of vehicles on the road. If you increase the number of vehicles on the road for the same number of passengers you are obviously increasing consumption for the same distance. I am looking at Average distance over Total Consumption, the reason I do this is to look at everyone's MPG rather than each individual vehicle.
It's best to consider PMPG (Passenger MPG). Also to note, if you have one person per car that average 40MPG you don't have still 40PMPG, you actually have 20PMPG. I get this number by total miles over total gallons used, if two 40MPG cars drive 40 miles you've used a total of 2 gallons, one for each car. thus total fuel consumption per person is 20, not 40.
Based on the first provided link A 60 passenger gets on average 6MPG, that's 360MPG.
A prius with 5 passengers would get up to 270PMPG.
Amtrack train with 350 passengers averages 1400PMPG but with only 200 people it averages 800.
A modern plane like the 747 gets ~100MPG as per Howstuffworks.com
To satisfy my own curiosity I calculated what it would cost (in terms of MPG per Person) to transport 5000 people using bus, boeing 747, Prius and train. Prius is hands down the worst of the above choices, then bus, then 747, then train(which is significantly greater than 747)
I should probably note that this neglects start and stop costs, so the above works well for long trips.
It also depends on how many people need to get between points A and B.
So really you should feel less guilty when flying across country than driving.
If it is more efficient to buy from a "local" big box store because they ship the product very efficiently. Then wouldn't it also be better to buy produce from the local supermarket because they can ship the product very efficiently, rather than every local farmer driving to the local farmers market, or worse yet every consumer driving out to the local farm?
The same logic of efficient shipping would apply to online stores as well, the shipping companies are probably very efficient as well. And instead every person taking a trip to the "local" big box store you have one truck delivery many boxes to many customers. Say you have 100 people who need goods, they live an average of 5 miles from the store, that's 500 miles. the local box box stores are more than 5 miles away for me. How far would 1 truck have to drive to deliver the same 100 packages? if the cars averaged 25 mpg and the truck 5 (probably better for a delivery truck) then the truck would be more efficient if it drive less than 100 miles, which IMO sounds very reasonable.
I mean, it's not like there is one truck per customer driving all the way from the companies head quarters. They use services like UPS who's job is to ship packages, if they don't do it efficiently they loose business.
Of course I am playing devils advocate, me and my wife try to buy most of our produce from the local farmers market (every Saturday), it's fresher, tastes better and there is a sense of community.
Incredibles - Exceptionalism should be rewarded
I really had issues with the Incredibles message. Unlike Wall-E the average human was portrayed as weak-willed, contemptible, and ungracious for not heaping glory on their superhuman betters. The line from the kid, "when everyone's special then nobody is" I found to be a pretty horrible statement, the implication being that he can't really shine unless everyone else is inferior in every way. And the race at the end, I didn't really see the point; it takes no effort to win, all he gets from winning is the dubious recognition of having won an elementary school race.
I think you are sort of missing the something/being overly critical
"when everyone's special then nobody is" was said by Flash (the youngest child) in response to his mother saying "everyone was special". IMO he said it in a way that I could see any child near his age saying.
I never felt like they were trying to glorify that statement, in fact the same thing was said by the main villain later in the movie. I can see it as an attempt to get children to associate the statement with flash, then show that it was a wrong line of thinking by associating the same statement with the villain, ie guilt by association.
So if anything, I think they were saying that every one IS special even if you aren't exceptional
The race at the end, Obviously flash was given more leway, so long as he didn't abuse his gift and make other people feel inferior/ Ie a lesson in being humble.
I'm not a movie critic/analysis/whatever, that's just how I see things.
You must have a TON of equipment, I don't know how much you need but I drive a subcompact (Honda fit) and I can fit 2 mountain bikes in the back as well all our gear and clothes for the weekend. A 7' christmas tree, a full size BBQ in a box (didn't even need to fold down the rear seat for that one!) if need be me and my wife could sleep in this car, with all our stuff.
Unless your hauling around large items (tables, large speakers, etc) I have a hard time seeing anyone being pushed for space in this car.
Offroad? How about a Subaru station wagon, those have a lot of room on the inside, and work well enough in the dirt. Fireroads don't count as offroad, unless your lifting a wheel, crawling over rocks, or digging through mud you probably don't need something with live axles or low 4wd, and a normal sized car would work just fine. heck you can still drive through small rocks with a Subaru on occasion
SUVs have their place, some people really do need them, you might but I don't know you. But MOST people don't NEED them, even when they think they do.
Part of having a discussion is listening (in this case readng) what hte other person has said(or typed), rather than formulate a response before the other person is finished. You have obviously failed in this regard, observe:
If you think "Global Warming" is good, then I'm not going to bother appealing to your sense of reason. I never stated it was good, merely I was not convinced it was bad. Which in your mind has translated to, they're not with us, therefor they're against us.
To be fair however I should have been more clear and stated I was not convinced one way or the other, that it was neither good nor bad, but rather just is.
I mean, how old are you? How long ago did you learn about evolution? Do you really thing that accepting the scientific fact of evolution means that you want to die, since that's how evolution works? Do you think that accepting the fact of death means that you want to die? hmm stating that evolution and global warming go hand in hand does not imply that I somehow want to die. If I wanted to die I'd take my own life, not wait for slow ass global climate change.
What you're saying isn't "humorous". It would be laughable if it weren't so ignorant without admitting it about something so serious. hmm I stated that only my last comment needed the humorous tag, not my entire message. Obviously it was lost on you.
Anyways... the point of all that, we're obviously not having a two way conversation, so I'm not very interested in continuing. Too bad, I could be convinced given the right material.
Er, I hear about reforestation and planting all the time. But maybe that's just because I've lived in N California and NYC. I've planted (and had planted) many trees and plants myself. Sounds like you're more involved than I, and as such are more likely to hear those sorts of messages. But someone like me, who isn't convinced global warming is a bad thing, and less convinced it's a entirely driven by man, doesn't hear messages about planting trees from higher ups, only from commercial vendors riding the eco-trends trying to earn a couple extra dollars. I've never heard government officials talk about planting trees or similar, never.
But just increasing CO2 output doesn't increase the amount of trees/plants, because we're busy cutting them down faster than they can grow back. Otherwise we'd have no problem. well yes, I should have used the humors tags around my last comment.
So we should both reduce our CO2 output, and plant trees/plants. And also start investing more energy in scrubbing pollution before it escapes, and investing some more of that "pollution" into usable byproducts. That's why plants and nature are balanced: there is no "waste": all outputs are inputs to something else we evolved to live among. I agree completely, and we know the earth is extremely resilient, so what makes us think we can screw it up? I mean even if we caused a global nuclear winter, living species would still survive, we'd have to try pretty damn hard to kill earth.
If some one believes in evolution and that global warming is a serious thread to earth, they are a hypocrite. I mean evolution and global warming go hand in hand. It's events like global warming that drives evolution.
If there's really that much oil, then some of the energy in it could be used to suck the CO2 and other emissions into liquid or solid byproducts, sunk into plastics or other materials we'd use to make things out of You mean materials like wood?
instead of just letting all that pollution spew into the air. It might seem more energy efficient to let the byproducts just fly out, but the energy required to clean it up (if that's even possible) is like the energy required to put the smoke back into a match after lighting it. You can waste your time and energy trying to figure out how to reverse what you've done, or spend little of both add a dash of thought and instead use the byproducts to produce something else. It seams the general populous only talks about reducing their carbon output, but there are two ways to managing all resources, production and consumption. In the case of carbon we can reduce it by reduction in production via vehicles, breathing, farting, BBQ's, whatever. And/or we can increase consumption, I'll take a shot from the hip and guess that the worlds largest consumer of CO2 is... PLANTS, green ones to be specific. yet when when the last time you heard some one say: "We need to reduce CO2, lets grow some plants and participate in reforestation!"
So I urge you, think of the plants, increase your CO2 production!
In the US, a "right" is inalienable, and not generally subject to the spot approval of the current power brokers holding the reins of government. This is one of the huge differences between the US definition of "right" and the EU definition of "right". Not defending Microsoft.... Just keep in mind that this clouds the discussion, as parties in each locale are using the same word to describe a subtly different concept. Except you know, when the rights of one impedes on the rights of another... Like say, liberty?
MS has a right to be proprietary, we have a right not to use proprietary. The government needs to ensure both.
Saying that the Bible is two-thousand year old fiction produced by goat herders is a statement of fact. It is verifiably not true. Actually it's not, because the bible is not 2000 years old, nor was it written by goat herders. The new testament is, but the old testament is much older. And the bible is commonly understood to be both the new and old testament.
I do not know all the authors of the new testament but a major author was Paul, a Pharisee, and as such was an educated man. So he wasn't a goat herder.
so obviously "the Bible is two-thousand year old fiction produced by goat herders" is not a statement of fact.
well that explains it, so I'm really not crazy, they just do a good stitch job:) and I would not have known about this since I do not use GE, just google maps.
Slashdot Mirror
And for me it works great in wine. Only possible glitch has been stuttering when I first enter the game, but for all I know it happens in windows as well, but I've never played it in windows.
What sits idle better for long period of time? Does toner start to clump together if you haven't printed in a month? Ink start to soak through? I go through a cartridge maybe every year, maybe two. our printer is typically regulated to map print outs on the way to somewhere I've never been.
Or like the Radio on GTA IV
Announcer: "Costs more and you loose ALL RIGHTS! Mobile Music Service, Less bang, for more buck."
If you distribute to the world at large then the world at large is your end client, and as such are required to distribute the source.
If you were Only Distributing to Buy-n-Large then you would only be required to distribute the source to Buy-n-Large.
If Buy-n-Large Distributed to the world at large then Buy-n-Large would be required to distribute the source.
Just because you give someone the source doesn't make it open source.
I had an old professor he used to say: If you cut off someones head they die, but just because they're dead doesn't mean you cut off their head.
like wise
If something is open source it means you distribute the source code to the end user, just because you distribute source code to the end user doesn't mean it's open source.
(please note, not all OSL require distribution to the end user)
Article mentions Android is based on Debian, so basically what has happened is apt-get was installed (and all required software) which then gives access to the entire debain ARM library.
Is this correct?
It's sad the number of responses saying this is a boot screen... maybe if you don't actually look at it, and just go: 'oh pretty text!'
My physics professor would use cables to introduce delay in detector signals, 1 foot per nanosecond delay. I always thought that was interesting as it's the same speed as the speed of light...
You're not really cutting in line though, I think you're simply removing the line. Same end result (getting to the front faster) but different means.
Answer the question using math.
F = ma
an immovable object has infinite mass, m = âz, a = F/âz => a = 0 regardless of F
an irresistible force is F = âz, , a = âz/m => a = âz regardless of m
But F = âz and m = âz, a = âz/âz => a is indeterminate, ie we have no tools to answer this question.
in case things aren't displayed properly, âz is the infinity symbol
Even further though the question only really applies to our world, and thus cannot apply to God, simply because if God does exist, is not part of our world.
Once you seriously start to think about that question you do realize how stupid it is, I mean, immovable to whom? Us? to be immovable to use it would have to have an infinite mass, and unless it had infinite density it would take up infinite space. If it didn't take up infinite space, it would have infinite density, it would be infinitely small, and IIRC would have infinite gravitational pull. Infinite gravitational pull which would cause the entire universe to collapse on this infinitely small item.
Still the question can be expanded to "if X is omnipotent, can X do something they can't do." Problem is we can only come up with situations that we comprehend, that are bound to the world we know. If a being was truly omnipotent, it would be beyond our comprehension. so all in all, the question is a stupid one.
USA too, but have a look at a product called Deep creak. It's made by the same peopel as seafoam, only in an aerosole can. It works wonders, I always make sure I have a can or two around the house.
I think you could have ruled out CA when he said 10" of rain, and basement...
It doesn't sounds like Google is asking for less efficient chips, that's a retarded notion. Instead it sounds like Google is asking for more durable chips.
One that still operates at X% efficiency but operates at a higher ambient temperature., say 70F instead of 65F. I'm sure Google would like it better if the chips didn't produce any heat (ie 100% efficient), but that's impossible.
Still, if you want to "Go Green" and be environmentally friendly, stop viewing heat as a problem. It's better to try and reclaim some of the lost energy (heat IS energy) than it is to spend more money trying to get rid of it. ie use energy to get rid of energy.
Me and my wife have a bottle of KY, so yes it is sold in the USA. Actually, KY is the only brand of sex lube I've heard of.
Passenger MPG = distance travelled / ( gallons used / passengers )
As you say in your first line consumption doubled, but then you have doubled the number of people travelling, so passenger MPG remains the same.
I think you're misunderstanding, in both cases I am assuming the same ridership, 2 passengers. I guess it would be less ambiguous if I said, "if both people take the same car" as opposed to "if they take the same car"
What I am looking at is different from Passenger MPG, call it total MPG, community MPG, commuters MPG, whatever MPG. I'm taking into account how many vehicle are used to transport X number of people if you have a vehicle to passenger ratio of 1:1 (1 passenger per vehicle) you consume ~twice as much than a 1:2 (2 passenger per vehicle) ratio.
PMPG/num_vehicles is what I am looking at. PMPG is fine if you're looking at one vehicle and only up to it's maximum capacity. But what happens when you exceed the maximum capacity of a single vehicle? That's the question I am answering, and am attempting to show that it is more efficient to move large numbers of people and get a much lower MPG, than it is to move a much smaller number of people, with a much higher MPG.
Really? Are you sure about that? 40 miles / 2 gallons is 20mpg, sure. But you seem to be ignoring the fact that you have two passengers, so 1 person per car is still 40mpg per passenger.
How so? if two people travel 40 miles @ 40MPG and take separate cars they consume 2 gallons, if they take the same car they only consume 1 gallon. Overall consumption has doubled by them taking their own car vs carpooling.
Basically, there is a correlation between passengers and number of vehicles on the road. If you increase the number of vehicles on the road for the same number of passengers you are obviously increasing consumption for the same distance. I am looking at Average distance over Total Consumption, the reason I do this is to look at everyone's MPG rather than each individual vehicle.
recently found this link to fuel consumption in 2007: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2007/index.html
It's best to consider PMPG (Passenger MPG). Also to note, if you have one person per car that average 40MPG you don't have still 40PMPG, you actually have 20PMPG. I get this number by total miles over total gallons used, if two 40MPG cars drive 40 miles you've used a total of 2 gallons, one for each car. thus total fuel consumption per person is 20, not 40.
Based on the first provided link A 60 passenger gets on average 6MPG, that's 360MPG.
A prius with 5 passengers would get up to 270PMPG.
Amtrack train with 350 passengers averages 1400PMPG but with only 200 people it averages 800.
A modern plane like the 747 gets ~100MPG as per Howstuffworks.com
To satisfy my own curiosity I calculated what it would cost (in terms of MPG per Person) to transport 5000 people using bus, boeing 747, Prius and train. Prius is hands down the worst of the above choices, then bus, then 747, then train(which is significantly greater than 747)
I should probably note that this neglects start and stop costs, so the above works well for long trips.
It also depends on how many people need to get between points A and B.
So really you should feel less guilty when flying across country than driving.
If it is more efficient to buy from a "local" big box store because they ship the product very efficiently. Then wouldn't it also be better to buy produce from the local supermarket because they can ship the product very efficiently, rather than every local farmer driving to the local farmers market, or worse yet every consumer driving out to the local farm?
The same logic of efficient shipping would apply to online stores as well, the shipping companies are probably very efficient as well. And instead every person taking a trip to the "local" big box store you have one truck delivery many boxes to many customers. Say you have 100 people who need goods, they live an average of 5 miles from the store, that's 500 miles. the local box box stores are more than 5 miles away for me. How far would 1 truck have to drive to deliver the same 100 packages? if the cars averaged 25 mpg and the truck 5 (probably better for a delivery truck) then the truck would be more efficient if it drive less than 100 miles, which IMO sounds very reasonable.
I mean, it's not like there is one truck per customer driving all the way from the companies head quarters. They use services like UPS who's job is to ship packages, if they don't do it efficiently they loose business.
Of course I am playing devils advocate, me and my wife try to buy most of our produce from the local farmers market (every Saturday), it's fresher, tastes better and there is a sense of community.
Incredibles - Exceptionalism should be rewarded I really had issues with the Incredibles message. Unlike Wall-E the average human was portrayed as weak-willed, contemptible, and ungracious for not heaping glory on their superhuman betters. The line from the kid, "when everyone's special then nobody is" I found to be a pretty horrible statement, the implication being that he can't really shine unless everyone else is inferior in every way. And the race at the end, I didn't really see the point; it takes no effort to win, all he gets from winning is the dubious recognition of having won an elementary school race.
I think you are sort of missing the something/being overly critical
"when everyone's special then nobody is" was said by Flash (the youngest child) in response to his mother saying "everyone was special". IMO he said it in a way that I could see any child near his age saying.
I never felt like they were trying to glorify that statement, in fact the same thing was said by the main villain later in the movie. I can see it as an attempt to get children to associate the statement with flash, then show that it was a wrong line of thinking by associating the same statement with the villain, ie guilt by association.
So if anything, I think they were saying that every one IS special even if you aren't exceptional
The race at the end, Obviously flash was given more leway, so long as he didn't abuse his gift and make other people feel inferior/ Ie a lesson in being humble.
I'm not a movie critic/analysis/whatever, that's just how I see things.
You must have a TON of equipment, I don't know how much you need but I drive a subcompact (Honda fit) and I can fit 2 mountain bikes in the back as well all our gear and clothes for the weekend. A 7' christmas tree, a full size BBQ in a box (didn't even need to fold down the rear seat for that one!) if need be me and my wife could sleep in this car, with all our stuff.
Unless your hauling around large items (tables, large speakers, etc) I have a hard time seeing anyone being pushed for space in this car.
Offroad? How about a Subaru station wagon, those have a lot of room on the inside, and work well enough in the dirt. Fireroads don't count as offroad, unless your lifting a wheel, crawling over rocks, or digging through mud you probably don't need something with live axles or low 4wd, and a normal sized car would work just fine. heck you can still drive through small rocks with a Subaru on occasion
SUVs have their place, some people really do need them, you might but I don't know you. But MOST people don't NEED them, even when they think they do.
To be fair however I should have been more clear and stated I was not convinced one way or the other, that it was neither good nor bad, but rather just is. I mean, how old are you? How long ago did you learn about evolution? Do you really thing that accepting the scientific fact of evolution means that you want to die, since that's how evolution works? Do you think that accepting the fact of death means that you want to die? hmm stating that evolution and global warming go hand in hand does not imply that I somehow want to die. If I wanted to die I'd take my own life, not wait for slow ass global climate change. What you're saying isn't "humorous". It would be laughable if it weren't so ignorant without admitting it about something so serious. hmm I stated that only my last comment needed the humorous tag, not my entire message. Obviously it was lost on you.
Anyways... the point of all that, we're obviously not having a two way conversation, so I'm not very interested in continuing. Too bad, I could be convinced given the right material.
So I urge you, think of the plants, increase your CO2 production!
MS has a right to be proprietary, we have a right not to use proprietary. The government needs to ensure both.
I do not know all the authors of the new testament but a major author was Paul, a Pharisee, and as such was an educated man. So he wasn't a goat herder.
so obviously "the Bible is two-thousand year old fiction produced by goat herders" is not a statement of fact.
well that explains it, so I'm really not crazy, they just do a good stitch job :) and I would not have known about this since I do not use GE, just google maps.