Yes, all engineering and manufacturing are in metric... That's why I can cut a 2x4 and nail it with my 16 penny nail using a 16oz hammer on top of my concrete (measured in cubic yards) reinforced with #8 bars (1 sq inch area) which lies on top of my W16x67 (16" tall nominal and 67 lbs/ft weight) steel beam. I could go on and on... But generally in the US, electrical and chemical engineers use metric, mechanical engineers might use it (they have metric and SAE), and civil engineers avoid it like the plague.
And don't even get me started on industry specific units... Barrels of oil anyone? Or barrels of beer... They aren't both the same volumes you know.
There is a capital building in Atlanta... Stop being a pedantic pedant and be more like a redundant member of the redundancy society for people who are redundant!
I never got to the point where I assassinated anyone. I gave up after walking around for a few hours so I wouldn't get caught climbing unnecessarily tall towers just to jump off them again. Did the game eventually become fun?
This is the same problem as the US deficit. We know it's better in the long term, but nobody has the balls to do what needs to be done for the long term. Suck it up, take a little discomfort now for a better life in the future. Instead of spending trillions mitigating a few percent of CO2 emissions, let's focus on making it easier for people to move to greener pastures as the globe warms. Or spend money convincing people not to move to the coast, and by the time sea levels are a problem, all the people that used to live on the coast are long dead.
Money does not get stuffed into a proverbial mattress. Rich people don't buy gold bullion and store it in a safe somewhere like Scrooge McDuck (or at least that's not where they keep the majority of their wealth). They keep it in stocks, bonds, savings accounts, property, all of which have positive effects. The money is still working, even if it isn't spent on retail goods. Quite frankly I think it's better if a rich person buys into an IPO rather than buying another 15 lambos... And as for the "they don't have the time" excuse, I'm sure they pay money managers to invest their resources for them, which in addition to creating another job helps them to use their money more efficiently. I hate the class warfare that we are creating. The middle class in the US has NOT disappeared, the lowest classes have... It's just that the people in the middle class don't see anyone below them anymore, and they see anyone above them as the "upper class".
Japan was different.. We defeated them. They surrendered. We weren't going in to liberate their people from their government. I'm sure if we dropped a few nukes on Afghanistan and Iraq, then told them what they were going to comply with things would be different than the current setup of "hey, we'd like to help advise you in setting up a new government of your choosing".
Wow, where the hell did you get your sources? Or is that what sitting around watching CNN will teach you? I assure you GE pays taxes. I assure you GE employees pay taxes. The fact that they didn't pay any FEDERAL, CORPORATE taxes was COMPLETELY LEGAL under current tax laws.
I assure you that Social Security is a HUGE liability, and there is nothing but IOUs in the "trust fund". Social Security can be nothing but a drain in the long term as it is a forced Ponzi scheme and the average age of the population is increasing. I know I am sure not expecting to get anything out of it.
Look up something called the Laffer Curve in your vast amounts of spare time and examine the effects of tax rates. Rich people don't have to look for places to throw money when the government doesn't take it by force. And in no way are you looking at the right graphs. What you are looking at is the economic output vs REVENUE. Yes, as people make more money, the government takes more. It has nothing to do with the rate. If increasing the rate on the rich is the best thing we can do, than why don't we just tax them on 100% of their wages? Then they wouldn't be rich you say? Well what if the government taxes everybody at 100% and then gave them enough money to live on? Sound a bit communist to anyone?
I never got that... A scientist who can figure out how to make a time machine out of a delorean can't find some crude oil (which should be pretty easy to find back then) and then do some simple distillation to get enough naptha to make a passable substitute. Doesn't seem too plausible to me. Also, it looked like he did try some alcohol, and they should have been able to adjust timing and whatnot to make the car run on ethanol, albeit probably not for very long...
I hope for the Air Force Museum in Dayton, OH. I grew up there and they have huge hangars where all the aircraft are indoors in an air-conditioned environment. Admission is free (except for IMAX movies), and lots of aircraft are open and free to walk through. Ohio also has a huge history in spaceflight, and I believe it would be one of the best venues for a shuttle.
And really, who believes a show where nerds have sex with hot women? It was much better when the sexual tension was unresolved. Now it's just Friends with science...
Tough shit for Florida... Yes, those are the figures by 2100. But 200 years from now things will be much different. Think back 200 years prior to now (1811). In that year the first steam powered ferry debuted. Cities were made of buildings that were probably 5 stories or less. Heck where Tampa, FL is wasn't even populated until 1823! In fact, Florida wasn't even a state until 1845. Tampa was incorporated in 1849 as a village. It's population didn't exceed 100,000 until 1930.
My point here is that Florida may well be under water in 200 years, but the world will look vastly different by then regardless of the sea level changes. The same is true for a lot of places in the world. In fact, Europe will have the biggest problem coping with the changes.
Let me look at the national averages of fuel right now...
Regular unleaded: $3.53 Diesel:$3.91 E85: $2.98
Now let's do it by BTUs: Regular unleaded (E10) is about 112kbtu per gallon Diesel is 130kbt per gallon E85 is 89kbu per gallon
So the price of gasoline per thousand BTU is 3.15c Price of diesel per thousand BTU is 3.01c Price of ethanol per thousand BTU is 3.35c
So as you see, diesel is more expensive per gallon but it is more dense (both energy and mass wise) so it is still cheaper than gasoline. Plus since you are probably getting 50% more miles per gallon in a TDI vs the gas powered Jetta, you are still coming out way ahead.
No, we call kerosene "kerosene". What you (and we) call "jet fuel" is a higher grade of kerosene with many more cleanliness requirements. To use an analogy: Jet fuel is to kerosene what premium is to regular gas (or petrol if you prefer). You can burn jet fuel as kerosene, but you can not use kerosene as jet fuel. Actually, you can burn jet, kero, or diesel as diesel, since diesel is #2 fuel oil, and kerosene and jet fuel are both #1 fuel oils.
With the Google Talk Voice and Video plugin, you have been able to make free internet calls for a long time now, and they will even remain free (in the US anyway) for the rest of the year at least. In fact, on the Google Voice page, it has the option of calling from gchat, and I do that now quite frequently as it's easier and better quality than my phone.
I never argued for making them illegal. In fact, as I originally said, I believe drugs should be legal despite their damages (like abortion). I also support your argument that the laws are worse than the drug use, but that does not make the drug use less damaging in itself. We are arguing on the same side.
I completely agree with you. But what you fail to realize is that politicians say things like "economic stimulus spending WILL create jobs" and other crap like that. Which is a huge inductively weak statement. Real Keynesians, would agree with me and you that that is all a theory. Politicians are more of Cult Keynesians... They believe that this is the true word, and that government spending is the best way to solve every problem. If they admitted up front, "Hey, we have no idea if this will work or not, but we hope it does," I'd have some more faith in them. They just keep drinking the Kool-Aid and saying things are getting better.
Actually, your "shut the hell up" comment does nothing for the argument. There is a difference between legality, ethicality, and morality. Let me give you some examples:
Abortion can easily be legal, ethical, yet immoral to me. Business exploitation can be illegal, unethical, and yet moral to me. Believing in Jesus can be legal, unethical, and yet moral to me.
The point is, I believe abortion is wrong, but I don't believe people should be forced to follow my beliefs. Hence, libertarianism. What people should be forced to do, is to not force things upon other people. Which if you consider a fetus a person, means abortion should be illegal. Obviously, you do not. I am not flailing, and in no way is there a hole in my argument, just your perception of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, all engineering and manufacturing are in metric... That's why I can cut a 2x4 and nail it with my 16 penny nail using a 16oz hammer on top of my concrete (measured in cubic yards) reinforced with #8 bars (1 sq inch area) which lies on top of my W16x67 (16" tall nominal and 67 lbs/ft weight) steel beam. I could go on and on... But generally in the US, electrical and chemical engineers use metric, mechanical engineers might use it (they have metric and SAE), and civil engineers avoid it like the plague.
And don't even get me started on industry specific units... Barrels of oil anyone? Or barrels of beer... They aren't both the same volumes you know.
And I have no problems measuring board that are .333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333... meters.
No carpenter measures in feet and inches, just inches... So your math becomes 123"-31" which is a simple 92".
There is a capital building in Atlanta... Stop being a pedantic pedant and be more like a redundant member of the redundancy society for people who are redundant!
But I don't want a sex change, even if they are experts!
I never got to the point where I assassinated anyone. I gave up after walking around for a few hours so I wouldn't get caught climbing unnecessarily tall towers just to jump off them again. Did the game eventually become fun?
This is the same problem as the US deficit. We know it's better in the long term, but nobody has the balls to do what needs to be done for the long term. Suck it up, take a little discomfort now for a better life in the future. Instead of spending trillions mitigating a few percent of CO2 emissions, let's focus on making it easier for people to move to greener pastures as the globe warms. Or spend money convincing people not to move to the coast, and by the time sea levels are a problem, all the people that used to live on the coast are long dead.
Money does not get stuffed into a proverbial mattress. Rich people don't buy gold bullion and store it in a safe somewhere like Scrooge McDuck (or at least that's not where they keep the majority of their wealth). They keep it in stocks, bonds, savings accounts, property, all of which have positive effects. The money is still working, even if it isn't spent on retail goods. Quite frankly I think it's better if a rich person buys into an IPO rather than buying another 15 lambos... And as for the "they don't have the time" excuse, I'm sure they pay money managers to invest their resources for them, which in addition to creating another job helps them to use their money more efficiently. I hate the class warfare that we are creating. The middle class in the US has NOT disappeared, the lowest classes have... It's just that the people in the middle class don't see anyone below them anymore, and they see anyone above them as the "upper class".
I propose a robot draft. If the war gets bad enough, we take the robots out of factories and replace them with inefficient meatbags.
Japan was different.. We defeated them. They surrendered. We weren't going in to liberate their people from their government. I'm sure if we dropped a few nukes on Afghanistan and Iraq, then told them what they were going to comply with things would be different than the current setup of "hey, we'd like to help advise you in setting up a new government of your choosing".
What are you talking about... That's all climate science is, and yet AGW is demonstrably TRUE!
Wow, where the hell did you get your sources? Or is that what sitting around watching CNN will teach you? I assure you GE pays taxes. I assure you GE employees pay taxes. The fact that they didn't pay any FEDERAL, CORPORATE taxes was COMPLETELY LEGAL under current tax laws.
I assure you that Social Security is a HUGE liability, and there is nothing but IOUs in the "trust fund". Social Security can be nothing but a drain in the long term as it is a forced Ponzi scheme and the average age of the population is increasing. I know I am sure not expecting to get anything out of it.
Look up something called the Laffer Curve in your vast amounts of spare time and examine the effects of tax rates. Rich people don't have to look for places to throw money when the government doesn't take it by force. And in no way are you looking at the right graphs. What you are looking at is the economic output vs REVENUE. Yes, as people make more money, the government takes more. It has nothing to do with the rate. If increasing the rate on the rich is the best thing we can do, than why don't we just tax them on 100% of their wages? Then they wouldn't be rich you say? Well what if the government taxes everybody at 100% and then gave them enough money to live on? Sound a bit communist to anyone?
Grow up and get a job!
I never got that... A scientist who can figure out how to make a time machine out of a delorean can't find some crude oil (which should be pretty easy to find back then) and then do some simple distillation to get enough naptha to make a passable substitute. Doesn't seem too plausible to me. Also, it looked like he did try some alcohol, and they should have been able to adjust timing and whatnot to make the car run on ethanol, albeit probably not for very long...
I hope for the Air Force Museum in Dayton, OH. I grew up there and they have huge hangars where all the aircraft are indoors in an air-conditioned environment. Admission is free (except for IMAX movies), and lots of aircraft are open and free to walk through. Ohio also has a huge history in spaceflight, and I believe it would be one of the best venues for a shuttle.
And really, who believes a show where nerds have sex with hot women? It was much better when the sexual tension was unresolved. Now it's just Friends with science...
Tough shit for Florida... Yes, those are the figures by 2100. But 200 years from now things will be much different. Think back 200 years prior to now (1811). In that year the first steam powered ferry debuted. Cities were made of buildings that were probably 5 stories or less. Heck where Tampa, FL is wasn't even populated until 1823! In fact, Florida wasn't even a state until 1845. Tampa was incorporated in 1849 as a village. It's population didn't exceed 100,000 until 1930.
My point here is that Florida may well be under water in 200 years, but the world will look vastly different by then regardless of the sea level changes. The same is true for a lot of places in the world. In fact, Europe will have the biggest problem coping with the changes.
Let me look at the national averages of fuel right now...
Regular unleaded: $3.53
Diesel:$3.91
E85: $2.98
Now let's do it by BTUs:
Regular unleaded (E10) is about 112kbtu per gallon
Diesel is 130kbt per gallon
E85 is 89kbu per gallon
So the price of gasoline per thousand BTU is 3.15c
Price of diesel per thousand BTU is 3.01c
Price of ethanol per thousand BTU is 3.35c
So as you see, diesel is more expensive per gallon but it is more dense (both energy and mass wise) so it is still cheaper than gasoline. Plus since you are probably getting 50% more miles per gallon in a TDI vs the gas powered Jetta, you are still coming out way ahead.
No, we call kerosene "kerosene". What you (and we) call "jet fuel" is a higher grade of kerosene with many more cleanliness requirements. To use an analogy: Jet fuel is to kerosene what premium is to regular gas (or petrol if you prefer). You can burn jet fuel as kerosene, but you can not use kerosene as jet fuel. Actually, you can burn jet, kero, or diesel as diesel, since diesel is #2 fuel oil, and kerosene and jet fuel are both #1 fuel oils.
With the Google Talk Voice and Video plugin, you have been able to make free internet calls for a long time now, and they will even remain free (in the US anyway) for the rest of the year at least. In fact, on the Google Voice page, it has the option of calling from gchat, and I do that now quite frequently as it's easier and better quality than my phone.
I think this is a more awesome Star Trek wakeup:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjBrqS6hitk
I think this is the better alarm clock: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjBrqS6hitk
I never argued for making them illegal. In fact, as I originally said, I believe drugs should be legal despite their damages (like abortion). I also support your argument that the laws are worse than the drug use, but that does not make the drug use less damaging in itself. We are arguing on the same side.
And I appreciate that, but I am not deciding for society, just myself.
I completely agree with you. But what you fail to realize is that politicians say things like "economic stimulus spending WILL create jobs" and other crap like that. Which is a huge inductively weak statement. Real Keynesians, would agree with me and you that that is all a theory. Politicians are more of Cult Keynesians... They believe that this is the true word, and that government spending is the best way to solve every problem. If they admitted up front, "Hey, we have no idea if this will work or not, but we hope it does," I'd have some more faith in them. They just keep drinking the Kool-Aid and saying things are getting better.
Actually, your "shut the hell up" comment does nothing for the argument. There is a difference between legality, ethicality, and morality. Let me give you some examples:
Abortion can easily be legal, ethical, yet immoral to me.
Business exploitation can be illegal, unethical, and yet moral to me.
Believing in Jesus can be legal, unethical, and yet moral to me.
The point is, I believe abortion is wrong, but I don't believe people should be forced to follow my beliefs. Hence, libertarianism. What people should be forced to do, is to not force things upon other people. Which if you consider a fetus a person, means abortion should be illegal. Obviously, you do not. I am not flailing, and in no way is there a hole in my argument, just your perception of it.