Another advantage over boiling water that I can think of is that these filters cannot (easily) be used for anything else. If you need firewood/fuel to sterilize your water, you might face the choice of either the meat or the water being raw when you have limited fuel (or more likely porridge of some sort will take the fuel, since meat is a luxury). This filter makes the water pure, making the fuel available for other things by default.
I'm a hobbyist photographer. I agree with the film people who say you should print.
However, I don't see that you have to use film. It's important to remember that you can go to the photo store and get prints of your digital photos, too (last time I went to have a roll of film developed they couldn't get it done in an hour because they were too busy doing prints of digital photos...) Photo store prints will likely last longer than anything from an inkjet for that matter.
I've looked through various storage solutions, and come to the conclusion that nothing below enterprise grade tape is a reliable solution for digital files. So print a lot! Your memory is what ultimately makes photos worthwhile, and you don't need that many photos for your memory to fill in the rest.
While negatives are easier to store reliably than digital JPEGs/RAW files, you only get one copy. Prints are really the best of all: you get something which deteriorates slowly and gracefully, and you can have as many copies as you like. Any non-lossy storage on top of them is just a bonus.
But classism is very real, and very much on topic. It's really what the article is about, and why the term "limousine liberal" is quite appropriate. "Rich boys and their toys" And what we have here is tax money being handed over to people who are completely undeserving (very much like the bank and insurance company bailouts), when it would bit as rational to give it to people who consider their personal transport to be more than just a prop to pick up chicks. This is what the "cash for junkers" should have done. It would have been helpful to our mitigate our oil dependence, and it might have helped out the auto industry if they were remotely inclined towards the public interest Instead we got this charade on all counts. We buy and spill more oil than ever, and the industry remains a sad joke.
Actually, if we change the term to "limousine environmentalist" we probably agree in this case. No need to to use a term which people connect to religion and other baggage when there's a more specific term. We appear to not really disagree that much here.
Now, if only the ~2000 other posters agreed there might be some kind of consensus.:)
You ended up supporting the premise of his point by acting as the kind of liberal guy he was mocking. Instead of responding with facts, you used emotional by somehow relating his criticism of the environmentalist movement to that of anti-semitism. There's zero logical leap for that comparison--you're just replacing words and acting as if that's a rebuttal.
If his criticism of the environmentalist movement is based on prejudice, then isn't it similar to anti-semitism? I mean, he says that these cars are bought by and only by rich liberals who don't have to work. Do you think he can back this up? The article just cites a future buyer prediction, the thing about rich slackers is something the above poster pulled out of his ass. I admit I probably did this discussion a disservice by replying to him so early since he's a troll and has been moderated as such already.
You also claim "conservatives can drive whatever they want," which wasn't said. The point is that rich liberals drive these cars, so that was the subject of the post. Conservatives weren't even mentioned. You took it as a personal attack on your ideology, so to respond, you had to bring up conservatives for some reason and draw a bunch of conclusions out of thin air about what you thought was implied by the post.
Well, I admit conservatives were only mentioned in that they were excluded from being buyers of electrics ("only liberals"). However, as I mentioned at the end of my post I was railing against the whole conservative/liberal thing. Rich people are rich fucks regardless of political label, so it doesn't matter much if they're "limousine liberals" or something else.
Basically, the original poster said something reasonably insightful about fuel efficient small conventional cars. Then he just made up some stuff about buyers of electrics. There are no doubt plenty of eco nuts who believe in Jesus and atheist commies who drive SUVs - the terms conservative and liberal are just name-calling, and made the post I originally replied much worse than it could have been.
As for my ideology, it is nothing like the stereotypical US liberal NOR conservative ideology. You know nothing about it. What made me reply was the fact that the original poster was doing a childish "us vs. them" routine.
I'm not from the US. Where I'm from, there's no liberal/conservative dichotomy.
No? I suppose there's no rich/poor dichotomy either? No social stratification of any kind?
You misunderstand me, and it's possible I didn't express myself clearly enough. I wasn't talking about how things are, but about what concepts are used to discuss things. The verbose version of what I said would be something like "In debates in my country we don't use the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in their US meanings. As such, we avoid the problems stemming from these words being quite ill-defined in their US senses. No one can therefore gain or lose support just by using these particular words, which are often nothing better than straw men."
In other words, I was commenting on the use of language in debate in our respective countries, and at least not attempting to say anything more than that about my own country. I did not try to say anything about my country's economy, since that's naturally very off topic.
These cars make no economic sense because the cost adder for the hybrid/plugin drivetrain never pays for itself in saved fuel compared to a reasonably-priced econono-box like the Mazda3 or Ford Fiesta. Therefore, only wealthy JEWS wishing to appear green to their snobby rich JEW social elitist friends will buy these.. It's easy when you don't work for your money and have no sense of value.
It's funny how you can just go on and on with any kind of delusions as long as you remember to use the magic "liberal" word. I changed your quote to show that it's the same as classic anti-semitist stuff: just say that they have lots of money, don't have to work, and form strange networks and you don't need to base anything on facts.
Also notice how these "liberals" should buy really small fuel-efficient cars instead, but so-called conservatives can drive whatever they want. Also notice how it is implied that no one "conservative" is ever a slacker born into wealth. After all, that has never happened.
I'm not from the US. Where I'm from, there's no liberal/conservative dichotomy. This means we on average have a better grip on reality. Of course, the article with its "limousine liberal" thing is a huge trollbait in itself, so nothing good will result.
it doesn't match "fiendishly hard to find", being the second google result for "remotest place on earth".
Since we aren't robots, there are always lots of options. I tried many, but always used "location" which to my brain sounds like a more appropriate formal word here.
The South Pole is the remotest by many standards in kilometres. However, I recall some recent research which came to the conclusion that parts of the Himalayas are the remotest on Earth. At least some parts of the year you can basically just fly to the South Pole. Not so much with the worst parts of the Himalayas - I seem to recall a minimum travel time of one or two weeks.
There was an article on the research on the BBC site about this, but it's fiendishly hard to find. Plus points to anyone who can dig it up.
Oh and I should avoid sounding cynical and say that the stuff in the article is certainly a cool challenge. It's still a tricky location compared to 95% of all other land, and I'd love to work on problem-solving like that myself.
It's dumb to do at all. It's solar that should be used to charge bike lights. Dynamos are heavy, thin-film PV is light. Charge during the day, and you can ride at night. Even if you need to plug in to charge it's still going to save you weight.
While this might work in many places (I still like hub generators better because they're awesome), it would probably suck in northern (/southern) places. In the winter it gets dark enough that solar energy is very close non-existent. I suspect only lead-acid batteries would survive living in the cold for that matter (and aside from being heavy, those too are happy to die when the temperature goes down to -30 C).
A generator is a pretty smooth concept in that it only requires the rider to be there for power. And if this requirement isn't met, there's no one around to care. Still, your solution might work in warmer regions.
I'd just like to point out that this is a good article: 1. It's news for nerds. 2. It goes into some technical detail (molecules named) 3. It mentions both possible advantages and disadvantages of the approach. 4. It has both reasonable amounts of text and a decent video. (read:content)
Really, this is probably the kind of article people refer to when they're whining about other ones.
I'd love some feedback from the people who go on about kdawson only posting crap, too. Is this crap? Or maybe you prefer to cherry-pick the bad articles instead to hate on the hated editor of the month/year?
Perhaps you should consult with your fellow believers before saying "Dinosaurs did not evolve." I was practically tarred and feathered for saying Tyrannosaurus Rexes more likely died than became turkeys during some "feather fossils discovered!" article only a few months ago.
This may sound a bit harsh, but: the reason people don't want to listen to you is not that you somehow have the "wrong" opinion.
Rather, it's because you appear unable to make a coherent argument. For instance, you claim to have said that the Tyrannosaurus Rex species more likely died than turned into turkeys. Mainstream science agrees with you on that. Now why did you say that then if you're against current mainstream biology? You need to sort either your language or your thinking to become more coherent in your message.
I'm posting just to agree completely. I'm an Ubuntu user who doesn't dual-boot. I'd love to play some nice games. Everything else works nicely, but man I'd love to play some stuff without emulators that never seem to work anyway.
To be fair, I haven't upgraded my computer in years, so maybe I should blame the victim a bit too...
So you had a crappy Macbook Pro (I am assuming since you seem to be a genuine Steve Jobs nut hugger) which fried your balls. How does that justify spending even more money on crappy products?
It's certainly nice if you get to live in a world where only Apple laptops get uncomfortably hot. Alas, the rest of us have to live in the real world.
Oh and I'm running Ubuntu on some random ATX box that's over five years old, so I cannot provide you with another opportunity to talk about Steve Jobs. Sorry about that.
When was the last time you read an article that included a direct quote? Or asked someone a pertinent question? Or hell, even showed any knowledge of the subject material?
Sometime within the last six hours. I recommend looking for a less shitty news source. Start with BBC News.
Now that we are talking about quality, can someone link me a story I can't find despite much effort?
It was basically from the beginning of Slashdot and consisted of CmdrTaco saying that he had bought more underwear, so that he now had a "full set" for the entire week.
Yes, there was such a story. I will be thankful if someone links it.:)
Whatever the (dis)merits of the application of the law are here you Americans really, really need to shorten your prison sentences.
Where I live (Finland), it's hard to actually be imprisoned for 20 years even if you murder someone. Sure, technically killers get lifetime sentences, but they are mostly let out after a decade or so.
And despite us technically having lots of killers and other criminals on the loose, this country is very safe. I believe the science actually says that prisons manufacture and "enhance" criminals.
I live in Finland and I'm 27 years old. Let me explain how weird checks are here.
Some time ago, I made a donation to WFMU (http://wfmu.org/). Since I didn't have ready access to a credit card, sending a check was the only option. I went to my bank and asked if it's possible to do...they weren't sure. Later, I went to another office of the bank and asked again and they said yes, but they have to order it from the main office.
Several days later they phoned me and told me they had the check. I went to get it, and then showed it to my friends. After all, at least the youngest ones had likely never seen one before. I'm not sure I had seen one before, either. People were somewhat impressed by me having such a weird item, or so I thought.
The idea that one's employer wouldn't pay directly to one's account is really weird for people here. Of course, we are probably more backwards in other ways, so don't worry.
Slashdot Mirror
Another advantage over boiling water that I can think of is that these filters cannot (easily) be used for anything else. If you need firewood/fuel to sterilize your water, you might face the choice of either the meat or the water being raw when you have limited fuel (or more likely porridge of some sort will take the fuel, since meat is a luxury). This filter makes the water pure, making the fuel available for other things by default.
I'm a hobbyist photographer. I agree with the film people who say you should print.
However, I don't see that you have to use film. It's important to remember that you can go to the photo store and get prints of your digital photos, too (last time I went to have a roll of film developed they couldn't get it done in an hour because they were too busy doing prints of digital photos...) Photo store prints will likely last longer than anything from an inkjet for that matter.
I've looked through various storage solutions, and come to the conclusion that nothing below enterprise grade tape is a reliable solution for digital files. So print a lot! Your memory is what ultimately makes photos worthwhile, and you don't need that many photos for your memory to fill in the rest.
While negatives are easier to store reliably than digital JPEGs/RAW files, you only get one copy. Prints are really the best of all: you get something which deteriorates slowly and gracefully, and you can have as many copies as you like. Any non-lossy storage on top of them is just a bonus.
Just replying to say that you wrote a good post. I hope you'll get moderated up at least a bit.
Actually, if we change the term to "limousine environmentalist" we probably agree in this case. No need to to use a term which people connect to religion and other baggage when there's a more specific term. We appear to not really disagree that much here.
Now, if only the ~2000 other posters agreed there might be some kind of consensus. :)
You ended up supporting the premise of his point by acting as the kind of liberal guy he was mocking. Instead of responding with facts, you used emotional by somehow relating his criticism of the environmentalist movement to that of anti-semitism. There's zero logical leap for that comparison--you're just replacing words and acting as if that's a rebuttal.
If his criticism of the environmentalist movement is based on prejudice, then isn't it similar to anti-semitism? I mean, he says that these cars are bought by and only by rich liberals who don't have to work. Do you think he can back this up? The article just cites a future buyer prediction, the thing about rich slackers is something the above poster pulled out of his ass. I admit I probably did this discussion a disservice by replying to him so early since he's a troll and has been moderated as such already.
You also claim "conservatives can drive whatever they want," which wasn't said. The point is that rich liberals drive these cars, so that was the subject of the post. Conservatives weren't even mentioned. You took it as a personal attack on your ideology, so to respond, you had to bring up conservatives for some reason and draw a bunch of conclusions out of thin air about what you thought was implied by the post.
Well, I admit conservatives were only mentioned in that they were excluded from being buyers of electrics ("only liberals"). However, as I mentioned at the end of my post I was railing against the whole conservative/liberal thing. Rich people are rich fucks regardless of political label, so it doesn't matter much if they're "limousine liberals" or something else.
Basically, the original poster said something reasonably insightful about fuel efficient small conventional cars. Then he just made up some stuff about buyers of electrics. There are no doubt plenty of eco nuts who believe in Jesus and atheist commies who drive SUVs - the terms conservative and liberal are just name-calling, and made the post I originally replied much worse than it could have been.
As for my ideology, it is nothing like the stereotypical US liberal NOR conservative ideology. You know nothing about it. What made me reply was the fact that the original poster was doing a childish "us vs. them" routine.
I'm not from the US. Where I'm from, there's no liberal/conservative dichotomy.
No? I suppose there's no rich/poor dichotomy either? No social stratification of any kind?
You misunderstand me, and it's possible I didn't express myself clearly enough. I wasn't talking about how things are, but about what concepts are used to discuss things. The verbose version of what I said would be something like "In debates in my country we don't use the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in their US meanings. As such, we avoid the problems stemming from these words being quite ill-defined in their US senses. No one can therefore gain or lose support just by using these particular words, which are often nothing better than straw men."
In other words, I was commenting on the use of language in debate in our respective countries, and at least not attempting to say anything more than that about my own country. I did not try to say anything about my country's economy, since that's naturally very off topic.
These cars make no economic sense because the cost adder for the hybrid/plugin drivetrain never pays for itself in saved fuel compared to a reasonably-priced econono-box like the Mazda3 or Ford Fiesta. Therefore, only wealthy JEWS wishing to appear green to their snobby rich JEW social elitist friends will buy these.. It's easy when you don't work for your money and have no sense of value.
It's funny how you can just go on and on with any kind of delusions as long as you remember to use the magic "liberal" word. I changed your quote to show that it's the same as classic anti-semitist stuff: just say that they have lots of money, don't have to work, and form strange networks and you don't need to base anything on facts.
Also notice how these "liberals" should buy really small fuel-efficient cars instead, but so-called conservatives can drive whatever they want. Also notice how it is implied that no one "conservative" is ever a slacker born into wealth. After all, that has never happened.
I'm not from the US. Where I'm from, there's no liberal/conservative dichotomy. This means we on average have a better grip on reality. Of course, the article with its "limousine liberal" thing is a huge trollbait in itself, so nothing good will result.
Grandparent:
I've had someone say he wanted to kill me and eat me
Parent:
All of the things in the parent have happened to me in the film business
So, can you describe the time when someone told you he wanted to kill you and eat you? I never knew it was so common! ;)
it doesn't match "fiendishly hard to find", being the second google result for "remotest place on earth".
Since we aren't robots, there are always lots of options. I tried many, but always used "location" which to my brain sounds like a more appropriate formal word here.
Thanks for the link.
You're basically right, but the summary still starts by talking about the most remote place, and that's what most will read anyway.
The South Pole is the remotest by many standards in kilometres. However, I recall some recent research which came to the conclusion that parts of the Himalayas are the remotest on Earth. At least some parts of the year you can basically just fly to the South Pole. Not so much with the worst parts of the Himalayas - I seem to recall a minimum travel time of one or two weeks.
There was an article on the research on the BBC site about this, but it's fiendishly hard to find. Plus points to anyone who can dig it up.
Oh and I should avoid sounding cynical and say that the stuff in the article is certainly a cool challenge. It's still a tricky location compared to 95% of all other land, and I'd love to work on problem-solving like that myself.
welcome datacomp
It's dumb to do at all. It's solar that should be used to charge bike lights. Dynamos are heavy, thin-film PV is light. Charge during the day, and you can ride at night. Even if you need to plug in to charge it's still going to save you weight.
While this might work in many places (I still like hub generators better because they're awesome), it would probably suck in northern (/southern) places. In the winter it gets dark enough that solar energy is very close non-existent. I suspect only lead-acid batteries would survive living in the cold for that matter (and aside from being heavy, those too are happy to die when the temperature goes down to -30 C).
A generator is a pretty smooth concept in that it only requires the rider to be there for power. And if this requirement isn't met, there's no one around to care. Still, your solution might work in warmer regions.
and it was like talking to badly programmed chatbots running on a steam-powered difference engine.
Hey, don't talk down the steam-powered difference engines. They're quite awesome, really.
Could this RNA technique be applied to the HIV virii family as well
The Romans had no plural for virus. Therefore, the English plural is viruses . For more mistakes with latin not to make, see http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2139/what-is-the-plural-of-penis.
I'd just like to point out that this is a good article:
1. It's news for nerds.
2. It goes into some technical detail (molecules named)
3. It mentions both possible advantages and disadvantages of the approach.
4. It has both reasonable amounts of text and a decent video. (read:content)
Really, this is probably the kind of article people refer to when they're whining about other ones.
I'd love some feedback from the people who go on about kdawson only posting crap, too. Is this crap? Or maybe you prefer to cherry-pick the bad articles instead to hate on the hated editor of the month/year?
Perhaps you should consult with your fellow believers before saying "Dinosaurs did not evolve." I was practically tarred and feathered for saying Tyrannosaurus Rexes more likely died than became turkeys during some "feather fossils discovered!" article only a few months ago.
This may sound a bit harsh, but: the reason people don't want to listen to you is not that you somehow have the "wrong" opinion.
Rather, it's because you appear unable to make a coherent argument. For instance, you claim to have said that the Tyrannosaurus Rex species more likely died than turned into turkeys. Mainstream science agrees with you on that. Now why did you say that then if you're against current mainstream biology? You need to sort either your language or your thinking to become more coherent in your message.
I'm posting just to agree completely. I'm an Ubuntu user who doesn't dual-boot. I'd love to play some nice games. Everything else works nicely, but man I'd love to play some stuff without emulators that never seem to work anyway.
To be fair, I haven't upgraded my computer in years, so maybe I should blame the victim a bit too...
So you had a crappy Macbook Pro (I am assuming since you seem to be a genuine Steve Jobs nut hugger) which fried your balls. How does that justify spending even more money on crappy products?
It's certainly nice if you get to live in a world where only Apple laptops get uncomfortably hot. Alas, the rest of us have to live in the real world.
Oh and I'm running Ubuntu on some random ATX box that's over five years old, so I cannot provide you with another opportunity to talk about Steve Jobs. Sorry about that.
Wait, are you serious? If you are, please describe this in more detail. That's either a good joke or really interesting.
When was the last time you read an article that included a direct quote? Or asked someone a pertinent question? Or hell, even showed any knowledge of the subject material?
Sometime within the last six hours. I recommend looking for a less shitty news source. Start with BBC News.
Now that we are talking about quality, can someone link me a story I can't find despite much effort?
It was basically from the beginning of Slashdot and consisted of CmdrTaco saying that he had bought more underwear, so that he now had a "full set" for the entire week.
Yes, there was such a story. I will be thankful if someone links it. :)
Whatever the (dis)merits of the application of the law are here you Americans really, really need to shorten your prison sentences.
Where I live (Finland), it's hard to actually be imprisoned for 20 years even if you murder someone. Sure, technically killers get lifetime sentences, but they are mostly let out after a decade or so.
And despite us technically having lots of killers and other criminals on the loose, this country is very safe. I believe the science actually says that prisons manufacture and "enhance" criminals.
No, it'll take 40 years again. After all, fusion is always 40 years in the future. It will certainly be now!
I live in Finland and I'm 27 years old. Let me explain how weird checks are here.
Some time ago, I made a donation to WFMU (http://wfmu.org/). Since I didn't have ready access to a credit card, sending a check was the only option. I went to my bank and asked if it's possible to do...they weren't sure. Later, I went to another office of the bank and asked again and they said yes, but they have to order it from the main office.
Several days later they phoned me and told me they had the check. I went to get it, and then showed it to my friends. After all, at least the youngest ones had likely never seen one before. I'm not sure I had seen one before, either. People were somewhat impressed by me having such a weird item, or so I thought.
The idea that one's employer wouldn't pay directly to one's account is really weird for people here. Of course, we are probably more backwards in other ways, so don't worry.