Tea doesn't have to be poured down your throat at the same temperature as in the cup. FYI.
When a hot drink is sold, it a lot about how LONG it will remain hot enough without spending on insulating container, rather than how high the temperature is right now. A simple plastic cap does triple duty as structural support to paper cup, protecting some aroma from escaping, and a rudimentary insulation.
PS : As far as tea is concerned, many teas - especially high quality ones, are even brewed at a lower temperature. 75-80 degree C is common. Some do have subtle aromas that escape at higher temperatures - seller of such a tea obviously won't serve it too hot.
Physical exercise/exertion also leads to more cell damage and repair - but that is known/suspected to lower chances of cancer. So not any case, just some.
No, not nearly that hot. Most drip coffee machines *brew* it at the McDonald's temperature, but it is kept at a much lower temperature (around 160F) in the carafe. One reason for this is that it rapidly loses quality if you keep it too hot.
Great that you make a distinction between brewing temperature and serving temperature. How about you make a distinction between serving temperature and swallowing temperature too? And how it rapidly loses perceived quality when at a lower temperature?
Serving at a temperature has absolutely nothing to do with consuming at that temperature.
Hot drinks are served hot because that brings out more subtle aromas when your mouth is around the surface of the drink and nose is just above it. If you take in a very small sip, you are not scalded for 3 reasons :
1. You might suck in the foam, that is of slightly lower temperature, and very low specific heat being mainly air.
2. Even if it is not foam, a sample from the surface is of a lower temperature than from deep within the cup. This way you can enjoy the aroma longer - which is over half the fun in most hot drinks anyway.
3. Heat from a very small sip quickly dissipates around your external skin - which is typically colder than internal body parts like gums, back of the tongue etc.
There are restaurants allowing / encouraging people to barbecue their food themselves - it doesn't mean people have to eat the 400 degree F food straight from the barbecue, or poke their eyes with firewood at 1000 degree F. All Americans should sue their own mothers for not permanently attaching glasses at birth which read "Caution : life has risks", except of course the mothers who have been prudent enough to do this.
Interesting idea. Most cities with severe traffic problems solve them by declaring that, absent emergencies, you're not allowed to drive on certain days. I'm sure your idea would be a welcome source of income if it is feasible.
You are right, and I don't like this "solution". A city can tide over emergencies using such methods, but making this the default "solution" for traffic problems almost amounts to the city breaking its promise to the citizens when they bought / registered the car.
If a city sees this as its future - it should start increasing the number of allowed taxis, not decreasing. Of course that only works along with adding tonnes of public transport, at least along the main arteries. At the same time, the cost of registering a new car in the city should increase - because the earlier tax (one time, or recurring as the city chooses) clearly wasn't enough. But this will be too little, too late in many cases.
Your first point addresses parking, not congestion. Your second point refers to sparsely populated areas, which do not typically have congestion issues
They are related. If people live at a density of 2-5 per square kilometre, in a large city, it can still choke the central business district of the city and the main arterial roads twice a day 2 hours each. In these circumstances, public transport costing less than trillions of dollars cannot be convenient because to match the convenience of personal cars the public transport needs to stop every 250 metres - which makes it extremely slow.
In such cities, to fix parking + congestion problems in central business district, and congestion problems in arterial roads; it is important that people switch to public transport. They cannot until they can very easily get taxi to the boarding point of public transport from their origin, and also to their final destination once they are done with the public transport ride. This is the transition I was talking about - completely personal car transport to a hybrid of taxi + public mass transit + taxi.
From my standpoint, it seems impossible to accurately price the space available on city streets, therefore market-based systems will perform poorly. I'd like to be wrong about that. Panama City would probably also appreciate a solution; I believe they have chosen to build light rail instead of implementing a medallion system.
Yes, many a times cities realize the price of the space retrospectively. Decades after allowing a car, they realize it costs much more to manage than the tax the city charged for it. This is understandable. But a medallion system along with limited permission to drive one's own car is a prison sentence for the citizens. I'd say good for Panama city - but as we know city planning is a tough nut to crack.
There are relatively hard limits to how much we can afford to incentivize cars being on the road.
Yes, cars. Not just taxis - so the price that is to be increased is that of car operation , not taxi operation. Why? Because taxis might even reduce some of the costs of congestion.
1. They don't need to park near the place where the traveller stays for 4 hours - they could park at a cheaper place, or pick up another passenger in that time without parking at all.
2. A high number of easily available taxis could smoothen the transition between 100% personal transport to some public transport on long haul travel. In sparsely populated civilizations, 100% public transport may never happen.
So medallion system is an extremely bad solution to the problems of too many vehicles on the road.
The "gun potential difference" at the gates of the club was enormous - not manageable by a few guards. But a multi-layer security formation to protect clubs would be highly effective.
The gun potential in Florida is high, and of course it is very low in clubs where a lot of alcohol is served - leading to high potential difference, requiring high protection. Gun potential in streets of Toronto is low - and maybe slightly lower in drinking clubs in Toronto. Potential difference at the gates of clubs in Toronto is not high - so unarmed or lightly armed security guards are good value for the security money in Toronto.
Take a typical small coffee shop in Florida - there is not much gun potential difference at its gates. People drinking coffee there are likely to be armed, so its attraction for a potential mass-shooter philosophically opposed to coffee wouldn't be much.
And, as odd as this may sound, religion. It's the only sensible way you can make more than 10 people work together without a strong cultural history in legal proceedings.
No, that is only required to make more than a Dunbar number of people work together. Upto 100-200 people can work cooperatively without much sabotaging , just due to the design of human anatomy itself.
Law was required only once more than 200 people started living together - and is less required even today in many small somewhat-isolated villages and completely not required in the many tribes.
Dunbar number is estimated to be in thousands for some fish. Ants work together so well so that the whole hive can be thought of as a living being. You might call all these employ some sort of religion to achieve this - but that would really stretch the definition of the word "religion".
Snowden told the truth and has to run around the world lest he be drowned in McDonalds coffee. This reaction to truth of yours, at least, is not surprising.
In a country where mobile phone users are considered too stupid to be able to shop for a mobile phone equipment and SIM card separately, and to realize that hot coffee could scald - it is surprising that being stupid can cause so much monetary loss through the courts.
Oh, wait... you're implying that you can decompile the binary back to its original source. I see you've never actually used a decompiler, then.
Oh wait, you are implying that you understand implications. I see you never actually understood implications, then. You need 10 years preparatory education for that.
Really? So you couldn't think if another use for an "executable" file, admitted so 6 times, you alleged that I couldn't either, but I did, though much before you were ready.
I questioned why one should choose an executable file for testing, over any other available file.
The first bit of a non-trivial file could be 0 or 1. If one chooses a file with first bit 0, by this logic it could be asked why is it being chosen over file with first bit 1. Similarly, why would we choose a file with first bit 1, over any other available file? Instead of the first bit, such argument could be made for other attributes of a file e.g. executabiliy, file length, some content pattern etc.
Just because a file with a particular attribute is being chosen, it doesn't mean that is the attribute because of which it is being chosen "over any other available file".
In this very post, you are giving up on coming up with more uses, and when you did it last time and I told you about one - you say it was obvious. How about you decide one way - either it is obvious, or you don't know.
We are not done yet. It is a poor student that criticizes free education - you, one in dire need and ill-equipped to locate faults would do well to not do so.
Once you accept that you fail to see any more uses for supposedly executable files, I'll show you.
Slashdot Mirror
Still, the cell flux in exercisers is more than that in non-exercisers. That contradicts your generalization.
Tea doesn't have to be poured down your throat at the same temperature as in the cup. FYI.
When a hot drink is sold, it a lot about how LONG it will remain hot enough without spending on insulating container, rather than how high the temperature is right now. A simple plastic cap does triple duty as structural support to paper cup, protecting some aroma from escaping, and a rudimentary insulation.
PS : As far as tea is concerned, many teas - especially high quality ones, are even brewed at a lower temperature. 75-80 degree C is common. Some do have subtle aromas that escape at higher temperatures - seller of such a tea obviously won't serve it too hot.
Physical exercise/exertion also leads to more cell damage and repair - but that is known/suspected to lower chances of cancer. So not any case, just some.
No, not nearly that hot. Most drip coffee machines *brew* it at the McDonald's temperature, but it is kept at a much lower temperature (around 160F) in the carafe. One reason for this is that it rapidly loses quality if you keep it too hot.
Great that you make a distinction between brewing temperature and serving temperature. How about you make a distinction between serving temperature and swallowing temperature too? And how it rapidly loses perceived quality when at a lower temperature?
This is how and why hot drinks are enjoyed : https://slashdot.org/comments....
Serving at a temperature has absolutely nothing to do with consuming at that temperature.
Hot drinks are served hot because that brings out more subtle aromas when your mouth is around the surface of the drink and nose is just above it. If you take in a very small sip, you are not scalded for 3 reasons :
1. You might suck in the foam, that is of slightly lower temperature, and very low specific heat being mainly air.
2. Even if it is not foam, a sample from the surface is of a lower temperature than from deep within the cup. This way you can enjoy the aroma longer - which is over half the fun in most hot drinks anyway.
3. Heat from a very small sip quickly dissipates around your external skin - which is typically colder than internal body parts like gums, back of the tongue etc.
There are restaurants allowing / encouraging people to barbecue their food themselves - it doesn't mean people have to eat the 400 degree F food straight from the barbecue, or poke their eyes with firewood at 1000 degree F. All Americans should sue their own mothers for not permanently attaching glasses at birth which read "Caution : life has risks", except of course the mothers who have been prudent enough to do this.
The cycle stops as soon as Bob thinks of getting a bear suit.
That is why the burqah deserves more respect than it gets. Way ahead of its time.
Interesting idea. Most cities with severe traffic problems solve them by declaring that, absent emergencies, you're not allowed to drive on certain days. I'm sure your idea would be a welcome source of income if it is feasible.
You are right, and I don't like this "solution". A city can tide over emergencies using such methods, but making this the default "solution" for traffic problems almost amounts to the city breaking its promise to the citizens when they bought / registered the car.
If a city sees this as its future - it should start increasing the number of allowed taxis, not decreasing. Of course that only works along with adding tonnes of public transport, at least along the main arteries. At the same time, the cost of registering a new car in the city should increase - because the earlier tax (one time, or recurring as the city chooses) clearly wasn't enough. But this will be too little, too late in many cases.
Your first point addresses parking, not congestion. Your second point refers to sparsely populated areas, which do not typically have congestion issues
They are related. If people live at a density of 2-5 per square kilometre, in a large city, it can still choke the central business district of the city and the main arterial roads twice a day 2 hours each. In these circumstances, public transport costing less than trillions of dollars cannot be convenient because to match the convenience of personal cars the public transport needs to stop every 250 metres - which makes it extremely slow.
In such cities, to fix parking + congestion problems in central business district, and congestion problems in arterial roads; it is important that people switch to public transport. They cannot until they can very easily get taxi to the boarding point of public transport from their origin, and also to their final destination once they are done with the public transport ride. This is the transition I was talking about - completely personal car transport to a hybrid of taxi + public mass transit + taxi.
From my standpoint, it seems impossible to accurately price the space available on city streets, therefore market-based systems will perform poorly. I'd like to be wrong about that. Panama City would probably also appreciate a solution; I believe they have chosen to build light rail instead of implementing a medallion system.
Yes, many a times cities realize the price of the space retrospectively. Decades after allowing a car, they realize it costs much more to manage than the tax the city charged for it. This is understandable. But a medallion system along with limited permission to drive one's own car is a prison sentence for the citizens. I'd say good for Panama city - but as we know city planning is a tough nut to crack.
There are relatively hard limits to how much we can afford to incentivize cars being on the road.
Yes, cars. Not just taxis - so the price that is to be increased is that of car operation , not taxi operation. Why? Because taxis might even reduce some of the costs of congestion.
1. They don't need to park near the place where the traveller stays for 4 hours - they could park at a cheaper place, or pick up another passenger in that time without parking at all.
2. A high number of easily available taxis could smoothen the transition between 100% personal transport to some public transport on long haul travel. In sparsely populated civilizations, 100% public transport may never happen.
So medallion system is an extremely bad solution to the problems of too many vehicles on the road.
The "gun potential difference" at the gates of the club was enormous - not manageable by a few guards. But a multi-layer security formation to protect clubs would be highly effective.
The gun potential in Florida is high, and of course it is very low in clubs where a lot of alcohol is served - leading to high potential difference, requiring high protection. Gun potential in streets of Toronto is low - and maybe slightly lower in drinking clubs in Toronto. Potential difference at the gates of clubs in Toronto is not high - so unarmed or lightly armed security guards are good value for the security money in Toronto.
Take a typical small coffee shop in Florida - there is not much gun potential difference at its gates. People drinking coffee there are likely to be armed, so its attraction for a potential mass-shooter philosophically opposed to coffee wouldn't be much.
People are stupid.
And, as odd as this may sound, religion. It's the only sensible way you can make more than 10 people work together without a strong cultural history in legal proceedings.
No, that is only required to make more than a Dunbar number of people work together. Upto 100-200 people can work cooperatively without much sabotaging , just due to the design of human anatomy itself.
Law was required only once more than 200 people started living together - and is less required even today in many small somewhat-isolated villages and completely not required in the many tribes.
Dunbar number is estimated to be in thousands for some fish. Ants work together so well so that the whole hive can be thought of as a living being. You might call all these employ some sort of religion to achieve this - but that would really stretch the definition of the word "religion".
Snowden told the truth and has to run around the world lest he be drowned in McDonalds coffee. This reaction to truth of yours, at least, is not surprising.
In a country where mobile phone users are considered too stupid to be able to shop for a mobile phone equipment and SIM card separately, and to realize that hot coffee could scald - it is surprising that being stupid can cause so much monetary loss through the courts.
This is not how the preparatory education starts.
Oh, wait... you're implying that you can decompile the binary back to its original source. I see you've never actually used a decompiler, then.
Oh wait, you are implying that you understand implications. I see you never actually understood implications, then. You need 10 years preparatory education for that.
Really? So you couldn't think if another use for an "executable" file, admitted so 6 times, you alleged that I couldn't either, but I did, though much before you were ready.
We'll reach there. Right now it is the response to your insistence on my continuation on the topic :
Once you accept that you fail to see any more uses for supposedly executable files, I'll show you.
I knew you were not ready, and you'll misunderstand, but sometimes a teacher has to acquiesce to I'll thought demands of the students.
If you're good at something, never do it for free.
What if I tell you I could test my decompiler with it?
My end of educating you has been held up for days now.
I questioned why one should choose an executable file for testing, over any other available file.
The first bit of a non-trivial file could be 0 or 1. If one chooses a file with first bit 0, by this logic it could be asked why is it being chosen over file with first bit 1. Similarly, why would we choose a file with first bit 1, over any other available file? Instead of the first bit, such argument could be made for other attributes of a file e.g. executabiliy, file length, some content pattern etc.
Just because a file with a particular attribute is being chosen, it doesn't mean that is the attribute because of which it is being chosen "over any other available file".
In this very post, you are giving up on coming up with more uses, and when you did it last time and I told you about one - you say it was obvious. How about you decide one way - either it is obvious, or you don't know.
It can't be both.
Who told your limited self that an "executable" could be used as a test payload for an encryption program in the first place?
We are not done yet. It is a poor student that criticizes free education - you, one in dire need and ill-equipped to locate faults would do well to not do so.
Once you accept that you fail to see any more uses for supposedly executable files, I'll show you.