Yes, because organic farming is strictly limited to older pesticides, many of which are even more deadly, especially to humans.
I prefer progress in my food.
The point of organic farming is NOT to use any pesticides. What you say here is total nonsense. (I could have mentioned manure produced by male bovines too).
Most of the people who are not vaccinated are relidiots, either Islamic or Christian. Their imaginary friend makes plans and we, humans, are not to interfere with those. If their imaginary friend wants to make you ill, you better get ill instead of using a vaccination!
Here in The Netherlands it's the neanderthalers in the 'bible belt' who get infected because of the insane reasons mentioned above, and in the Middle East it's fundamentalist Muslims who prevent vaccination.
Not to mention it appears they are still using voodoo like having to degauss drives instead of simply wiping them.\
So I wonder how long voodoo from the age of DOS is gonna be taken as fact? An encrypted drive with a single wipe would insure there was zero data to recover and wouldn't be based on 30+ year old info, it would also deal with the real issue, the fact that there is no way to securely wipe an SSD that I know of, because SSDs don't "erase", just mark sectors as available to minimize writes.
Maybe because degaussing takes seconds (i think) and wiping takes hours? Not unimportant for a business I would think. (You are right about the SSD's though).
More ODF files should be put into circulation in the business world.
I fullhartedly agree! When I have to send a company a file (most of the time my CV, alas:-( ), I always ask if I can send it as an.odt file. Many times I am asked what that is, and then I explain, but offer to send the file as.pdf. I do this, just to make clear that there ARE other things around than MS-Office. However, I find that, slowly,.odt files get accepted more, and companies that do accept them have a plus for me. Problem is that most people, even when they use Libre Office or any other non-MS suite, will by default send everyone everything in the MS-Office formats, thus establishing the status quo. Non-MS users should use Open Document Format files, especially when sending documents to regulatory organs like city councils etc. In Europe (where I live), governments and government organs are mandated (hope that is the right word) to be able to handle ODF's, but if they never recieve those, most of them won't even know about their existence, let alone know how to handle them.
(For those who want to tell me I am a pretentious prick: I know.:p )
You, as well as a previous poster who brought up the upper-/lower case thing, are right. The Joule is indeed the amount of energy corresponding with one Watt for one second, hence the fact that I said that one Watt is one Joule per second. Both are the same, you are saying that J = W * s, I say W = J/s. IIRC I said so in my first as well as in my second post.
It is not that hard, maybe my explanation was not too clear:-) The Watt is the quantity of energy used *per second*. A 60 Watt lamp uses 60 times as much energy *per given amount of time* as a 1 Watt lamp does. But if you let a 1 Watt lamp burn for 1 hour, and a 60 Watt lamp for 1 minute, they both have used the same total amount of energy, namely 1 Watt times 60 minutes (1 Watt lamp), and 60 Watt times 1/60 hour (60 W lamp) = 1 Watthour = 1Wh. A KWh is just 1000 (1K) Wh. So if you have a battery, the total amount of *energy* stored can be expressed in KWh, the product of the *power* in KW that can be delivered and the time that power can be delivered. If you use more power, you have less time and v.v. The confusing thing for many people is the difference between energy (Joules) and power (Watt). One Watt is one Joule *per second*. To measure the total amount of energy that has been used, you have to multiply the amount of power used by the amount of time the power is used.
I hope this clears things up a bit, although I'm afraid this is confusing as heck too:-)
And as you said, this is more or less what the author found, except that he apparently has no idea how to convert kW/h per hour into watts.
Yes, he's a fucking moron.
Sorry, but you are wrong her. First, it's KWh (KiloWatthour), not KW/h. The Watt is a unit that is used for measuring the amount of energy used per unit of time, in short 1 Watt = 1 Joule per second. When electric energy is stored, like in a battery, or measured, the total energy stored or used is derived by multiplying Watts by time, thus Watt * seconds. Since this is not an easy workable unit, KiloWatts are multiplied by hours, and there we have the KWh. So, if a battery has a capacity of 100 KWh, it is able of delivering 1000W for 100 hours, 500W for 200 hours, 100W for 1000 hours and 1W for 100,000 hours. So, to make a long story short, the lost capacity of a battery HAS to be expressed in KWh, and the resulting loss of range totally depends on the driving conditions. It might be (numbers pulled from lower opening of intestine) 100 km when driving a constant 20 km/h, or 5 km when driving a constant 150 km/h, since the amount of power drawn on these speeds vary. But I hope you get the picture.
The qualification as a copulating, low-IQ person is totally yours.
Not really a good example as one can install pretty much *anything* over Vista and never look back.
So true! But the point I was trying to make was that GP, although not using all the correct technical terms, might have had the same experience as I had in the early days of Vista. Linux distros were not adapted then to handle the changed boot procedure of Windows, which resulted in a non working system where neither Windows nor Linux would work when you tried to install Linux in a dual boot configuration. Later distros were adapted, but MS had possibly succeeded in spreading the FUD that 'Linux is hard to install yada yada' for a while, and people were discouraged to try Linux because initially it WAS hard to install besides Vista.
Technically you are right, but I think I know what parent means. When I still used Windows occasionally besides Ubuntu, I bought a new laptop that had Vista (Yech!! It was way slower than Windoze on my old, less powerful laptop) installed on it. In those early days, MS had changed the boot procedure (imho to make installation of real OS-es difficult). When I tried to install Ubuntu as dual boot, both OS-es were nuked. After a restore of Vista (I thought it might be handy to get some knowledge of this 'OS'), I lived with it for a week, then it developed problems with my network. All settings were right as far as I could see, and I hated its guts, so I installed Ubuntu and have never looked back since.
Very important actually. The ratio of atoms in the molecule is also the ratio by volume of gases at equal pressure you need to make it.
Uhh...no. The volume of gases at equal pressure is the same, no matter how many atoms are in a molecule. It's the mass of such a volume that varies with molecule-weight, since the number of gas molecules in a given volume at a given pressure is the same for all gases.
OK, looks like you are right after all. I am not so at home in these matters, but if I interpret this right than Opera 7 got served the style sheet for Opera 6, which contained a bug that Opera 6 worked around but 7 didn't (as you wrote in your first post). I do have a tendency to suspect MS in all they do, and as far as I could tell from the link in my previous post it looked like foul play all the way. But I guess a site full of geeks has more authority in these matters, so all I can do is humbly admit that I was wrong. (Dang, I hate being wrong!:-) )
No, Opera did not have 'a bug which that style sheet worked around'. I am too lazy to find a link, but when Opera changed the user agent to 'IE' (or Firefox, I'm not sure) without changing the renderer or anything else, the pages rendered perfectly. So there was no bug in Opera, MS borked the stylesheet they served to Opera.
Oops, I should have looked up 'contention' BEFORE I replied to your post! English is not my first language and I started to doubt the meaning of the word after I submitted my comment. My excuses to you sir/ma'am, I thought we disagreed on this, but we don't.
Sorry to have to disagree with you again but: Toner is a kind of plastic powder and does NOT contain ink. In the printing process the toner is charged and pulled to the paper which has an opposite charge on the places where the toner must 'land'. After that, the toner is molten into the paper bij heating it. That step of the process is accomplished by the fuser, which, as the name says, fuses the toner with the paper. If toner wore anything but a very fine powder (getting back to one of your earlier posts) the whole process would not work.
Apparently you have never opened a laserprinter or only ones that are very different from the ones I used to repair and maintain. Toner is a very fine powder and of it leaks out of its containter it goes everywhere. Try blowing out a laserprinter with compressed air and see for yourself. One advice: wear a face mask or don't breath, if the stuff gets in your lungs it's not good for you!
Which is why this project is folly. All its effort is making a physical object durable, which is of course no assurance of longevity. The chances are high that sometime in the next 10,000 years some people (if not a nonhuman natural event, like volcano) will damage, dismantle or disable the physical clock - no matter how strong some of their ancestors once made it. But even if it does last, without ensuring people around throughout the 10,000 years can read it when it rings will mean they have failed to make a "10,000 clock", though they might have made a "10,000 year machine".
The weird thing is that some people think this will be a failure because of possible natural disasters and people possibly not being able to read this clock etcetera, and get hissy fits about it, while the many of the same people don't mind at all that really, REALLY, REALLY!! dangerous nuclear waste has to be safely disposed of for about 25 times as long as the period this clock is designed for and still insist nuclear energy is safe.
It's just a matter of time before a new superhero will appear and help us out. We all know the consequences of being bitten by a radioactive spider. We just have to wait until a fisherman gets bitten by a radioactive shark (with or w/o laser) or stung by a radiating jellyfish. Jellyman to the rescue!!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because organic farming is strictly limited to older pesticides, many of which are even more deadly, especially to humans.
I prefer progress in my food.
The point of organic farming is NOT to use any pesticides. What you say here is total nonsense. (I could have mentioned manure produced by male bovines too).
Seriously, what the hell? 417 cases of polio last year reported. This has to be on par with the number of motorcycle deaths due to flying mammals.
The problem is that it's infectuous. One person can infect several others, who infect more. Ever heard of exponential growth? If not, Google it.
Most of the people who are not vaccinated are relidiots, either Islamic or Christian. Their imaginary friend makes plans and we, humans, are not to interfere with those. If their imaginary friend wants to make you ill, you better get ill instead of using a vaccination!
Here in The Netherlands it's the neanderthalers in the 'bible belt' who get infected because of the insane reasons mentioned above, and in the Middle East it's fundamentalist Muslims who prevent vaccination.
Oh, the blessings of religion!
Not to mention it appears they are still using voodoo like having to degauss drives instead of simply wiping them.\
So I wonder how long voodoo from the age of DOS is gonna be taken as fact? An encrypted drive with a single wipe would insure there was zero data to recover and wouldn't be based on 30+ year old info, it would also deal with the real issue, the fact that there is no way to securely wipe an SSD that I know of, because SSDs don't "erase", just mark sectors as available to minimize writes.
Maybe because degaussing takes seconds (i think) and wiping takes hours? Not unimportant for a business I would think. (You are right about the SSD's though).
More ODF files should be put into circulation in the business world.
I fullhartedly agree! When I have to send a company a file (most of the time my CV, alas :-( ), I always ask if I can send it as an .odt file. Many times I am asked what that is, and then I explain, but offer to send the file as .pdf. I do this, just to make clear that there ARE other things around than MS-Office. However, I find that, slowly, .odt files get accepted more, and companies that do accept them have a plus for me.
Problem is that most people, even when they use Libre Office or any other non-MS suite, will by default send everyone everything in the MS-Office formats, thus establishing the status quo. Non-MS users should use Open Document Format files, especially when sending documents to regulatory organs like city councils etc.
In Europe (where I live), governments and government organs are mandated (hope that is the right word) to be able to handle ODF's, but if they never recieve those, most of them won't even know about their existence, let alone know how to handle them.
(For those who want to tell me I am a pretentious prick: I know. :p )
You, as well as a previous poster who brought up the upper-/lower case thing, are right.
The Joule is indeed the amount of energy corresponding with one Watt for one second, hence the fact that I said that one Watt is one Joule per second. Both are the same, you are saying that J = W * s, I say W = J/s. IIRC I said so in my first as well as in my second post.
You are right, I did not really think about it, to be honest. But thanks for reminding me, I hope I'll remember next time.
It is not that hard, maybe my explanation was not too clear :-)
The Watt is the quantity of energy used *per second*. A 60 Watt lamp uses 60 times as much energy *per given amount of time* as a 1 Watt lamp does. But if you let a 1 Watt lamp burn for 1 hour, and a 60 Watt lamp for 1 minute, they both have used the same total amount of energy, namely 1 Watt times 60 minutes (1 Watt lamp), and 60 Watt times 1/60 hour (60 W lamp) = 1 Watthour = 1Wh. A KWh is just 1000 (1K) Wh.
So if you have a battery, the total amount of *energy* stored can be expressed in KWh, the product of the *power* in KW that can be delivered and the time that power can be delivered. If you use more power, you have less time and v.v.
The confusing thing for many people is the difference between energy (Joules) and power (Watt). One Watt is one Joule *per second*. To measure the total amount of energy that has been used, you have to multiply the amount of power used by the amount of time the power is used.
I hope this clears things up a bit, although I'm afraid this is confusing as heck too :-)
The average PC draws around 50-200W idle.
And as you said, this is more or less what the author found, except that he apparently has no idea how to convert kW/h per hour into watts.
Yes, he's a fucking moron.
Sorry, but you are wrong her. First, it's KWh (KiloWatthour), not KW/h.
The Watt is a unit that is used for measuring the amount of energy used per unit of time, in short 1 Watt = 1 Joule per second.
When electric energy is stored, like in a battery, or measured, the total energy stored or used is derived by multiplying Watts by time, thus Watt * seconds. Since this is not an easy workable unit, KiloWatts are multiplied by hours, and there we have the KWh.
So, if a battery has a capacity of 100 KWh, it is able of delivering 1000W for 100 hours, 500W for 200 hours, 100W for 1000 hours and 1W for 100,000 hours.
So, to make a long story short, the lost capacity of a battery HAS to be expressed in KWh, and the resulting loss of range totally depends on the driving conditions. It might be (numbers pulled from lower opening of intestine) 100 km when driving a constant 20 km/h, or 5 km when driving a constant 150 km/h, since the amount of power drawn on these speeds vary. But I hope you get the picture.
The qualification as a copulating, low-IQ person is totally yours.
Not really a good example as one can install pretty much *anything* over Vista and never look back.
So true! But the point I was trying to make was that GP, although not using all the correct technical terms, might have had the same experience as I had in the early days of Vista. Linux distros were not adapted then to handle the changed boot procedure of Windows, which resulted in a non working system where neither Windows nor Linux would work when you tried to install Linux in a dual boot configuration. Later distros were adapted, but MS had possibly succeeded in spreading the FUD that 'Linux is hard to install yada yada' for a while, and people were discouraged to try Linux because initially it WAS hard to install besides Vista.
Technically you are right, but I think I know what parent means. When I still used Windows occasionally besides Ubuntu, I bought a new laptop that had Vista (Yech!! It was way slower than Windoze on my old, less powerful laptop) installed on it. In those early days, MS had changed the boot procedure (imho to make installation of real OS-es difficult). When I tried to install Ubuntu as dual boot, both OS-es were nuked.
After a restore of Vista (I thought it might be handy to get some knowledge of this 'OS'), I lived with it for a week, then it developed problems with my network. All settings were right as far as I could see, and I hated its guts, so I installed Ubuntu and have never looked back since.
You are right, as well as I was. I misunderstood the post to which I answered. :-)
My life has improved
Very important actually. The ratio of atoms in the molecule is also the ratio by volume of gases at equal pressure you need to make it.
Uhh...no. The volume of gases at equal pressure is the same, no matter how many atoms are in a molecule. It's the mass of such a volume that varies with molecule-weight, since the number of gas molecules in a given volume at a given pressure is the same for all gases.
You are right. As I already said in another reply, the only thing I can do is humbly admit that I am wrong. Thanks for your clear explanation.
OK, looks like you are right after all. I am not so at home in these matters, but if I interpret this right than Opera 7 got served the style sheet for Opera 6, which contained a bug that Opera 6 worked around but 7 didn't (as you wrote in your first post). :-) )
I do have a tendency to suspect MS in all they do, and as far as I could tell from the link in my previous post it looked like foul play all the way. But I guess a site full of geeks has more authority in these matters, so all I can do is humbly admit that I was wrong.
(Dang, I hate being wrong!
(BTW: Nice sig, I totally agree with that one!)
Sorry guys, but I believe this more:
https://people.opera.com/howcome/2003/2/msn/
Microsoft NEVER plays fair, never has and probably never will.
No, Opera did not have 'a bug which that style sheet worked around'. I am too lazy to find a link, but when Opera changed the user agent to 'IE' (or Firefox, I'm not sure) without changing the renderer or anything else, the pages rendered perfectly. So there was no bug in Opera, MS borked the stylesheet they served to Opera.
Text Jesus and mo.com was my mistake, didn't know /. added the domain automatically.
The koran has been boiled down to a pretty short text here:
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2012/02/01/dross/ (Jesus and Mo.com).
I think the bible is about the same, with allah replaced by god.
Oops, I should have looked up 'contention' BEFORE I replied to your post! English is not my first language and I started to doubt the meaning of the word after I submitted my comment. My excuses to you sir/ma'am, I thought we disagreed on this, but we don't.
Sorry to have to disagree with you again but:
Toner is a kind of plastic powder and does NOT contain ink. In the printing process the toner is charged and pulled to the paper which has an opposite charge on the places where the toner must 'land'. After that, the toner is molten into the paper bij heating it. That step of the process is accomplished by the fuser, which, as the name says, fuses the toner with the paper.
If toner wore anything but a very fine powder (getting back to one of your earlier posts) the whole process would not work.
Apparently you have never opened a laserprinter or only ones that are very different from the ones I used to repair and maintain.
Toner is a very fine powder and of it leaks out of its containter it goes everywhere. Try blowing out a laserprinter with compressed air and see for yourself. One advice: wear a face mask or don't breath, if the stuff gets in your lungs it's not good for you!
Which is why this project is folly. All its effort is making a physical object durable, which is of course no assurance of longevity. The chances are high that sometime in the next 10,000 years some people (if not a nonhuman natural event, like volcano) will damage, dismantle or disable the physical clock - no matter how strong some of their ancestors once made it. But even if it does last, without ensuring people around throughout the 10,000 years can read it when it rings will mean they have failed to make a "10,000 clock", though they might have made a "10,000 year machine".
The weird thing is that some people think this will be a failure because of possible natural disasters and people possibly not being able to read this clock etcetera, and get hissy fits about it, while the many of the same people don't mind at all that really, REALLY, REALLY!! dangerous nuclear waste has to be safely disposed of for about 25 times as long as the period this clock is designed for and still insist nuclear energy is safe.
People are weird!
It's just a matter of time before a new superhero will appear and help us out. We all know the consequences of being bitten by a radioactive spider. We just have to wait until a fisherman gets bitten by a radioactive shark (with or w/o laser) or stung by a radiating jellyfish. Jellyman to the rescue!!
It did get hit twice by lightning, though...
God didn't like the porn?
No....he thought the lady was not hot enough and wanted to help!