I could measure the power consumption based off the number of candles it takes to power a steam-based generator, And it'd be oddly sensible in a country that still clings to the imperial measurement system.
I'm not sure how this comment ended up as a reply to its parent. It was meant to be in response to the grand-parent, which was the tail of the thread when I was writing it.
The catalytic converter, which is an important part of the emissions control systems in a car, sits in between the engine and the tailpipe. It contains a honeycomb structure coated in a catalyst. For it to work at any real effectiveness, the honeycomb must have many densely-packed chambers the exhaust gasses are forced through.
The catalytic converter is therefore an impedance to the flow of exhaust gasses. In a four-stroke engine the exhaust gasses are pushed out by an up-sweep of the piston. If you restrict the exhaust, the piston "feels" the resistance. Imagine plugging the tailpipe entirely - the result isn't what you'd call "efficient."
There are also a few other complexities introduced with catalytic converters, like the fact that it's much harder to burn fuel lean.
"About 15 percent of Australians have experienced racism within institutional settings like the workplace and in education. About one-quarter of Australians report the experience of âeveryday racismsâ(TM)."
Ignoring racism and claiming it doesn't exist is not the best way to make it go away.
A small percentage of women have four types of cones. The distinction between the L and M cones is carried on the X chromosome. If a woman carries X chromosomes that each carry a different set of L/M photopigment genes, four-colour vision can result.
Tetrachomtatism is nothing though, if you talk to a mantis shrimp. A mantis shrimp has in 16 photoreceptor types in its eye: 12 different colours and 4 for sensing polarisation.
The three types of cones are generally referred to as L, M and S cones (for long, medium and short wavelength peak sensitivity) The S cones peak at what we call blue (~435nm), the M at green (~534nm) but the L do not peak at red. The L cones have a peak sensitivity at about yellow-green (~564nm).
We use red because red is way out the end of the visible spectrum and red light excites the L cones but not the M cones. If we were to use yellow-green we'd be exciting the M cones too much. The average person has about twice as many M cones than L or S cones, (we're very sensitive to green light) so yellow-green ends up exciting the M cones more than the L cones. By adjusting the amount of red (L cone excitation), green (M cone excitation) and blue (S cone excitation) we can replicate in the eye the cone response any visible colour would generate.
The human vision system is not like a camera - the cone response is only one part of a long and complex chain. Afterimages are somewhat a function of photo-pigment bleaching and later stages of visual processing in the nervous system and brain.
Cone response references: Stockman, A. & Sharpe, L., "The spectral sensitivities of the middle- and long-wavelength-sensitive cone derived from measurements in observers of known genotype'', Vision Research, Volume 40, Issue 13, Pages 1711-1737, 16 June 2000
Then I am equally confused, as the Firefox 2.0.0.12/Mac I just downloaded doesn't. Further, I can't find any option in the menus / preferences to turn it on.
Maybe the beta versions do, but the latest stable version on the Mac does not. There are also quite a few other things that make it disconcertingly "un-mac-like." That's the whole reason the Camino project exists.
Hopefully version 3 will bring Firefox on the Mac up to scratch.
The Labor Party (and, by the way, it's spelt that way) were quite clear in their promises before the election to attempt to filter the internet at ISP level. Maybe this will be a good lesson for you: next election you might actually bother to read the policies of the people you vote for.
I've taken the time to read through the document you link. First of all, it's not a peer-reviewed research document, but an amicus curiae brief, which is a very different thing. It may reference peer reviewed research, but it is written with specific motivation.
I thought about writing up a long reply detailing specifically what I thought was wrong with it and why I ultimately found it unconvincing, but in the end life is too short. The highlights, however, were: comparing murder rates in the 1940s to today without acknowledging that one or two aspects of society have changed since then that have also affected the murder rate and equating various indication of crime in non-US countries without recognising that the cultures in these places are different.
Honestly, some of the flaws in the document's reasoning were embarrassing and if this is the best argument for guns in society I'm absolutely astonished so many people subscribe to this point of view.
Speaking as an Australian, I'm quite glad this isn't really an option here.
If handguns are to work at all to deter assault or robbery, a reasonably high percentage of the general population has to be packing. Unfortunately when there are that many guns floating around it's likely the assailant / robber has one too and all you've done is increased the chances of somebody getting killed rather than just mugged or robbed.
In the end I'm not sure I buy the idea that handguns deter crime significantly anyway. Even if they did, given the rate at which they're used to inflict grievous harm by angry spouses, stupid children playing with them, and homeowners spooked by noises shooting themselves in the foot at night, I don't think having handguns distributed into society actually works to reduce overall human suffering.
You are correct about power lines. The high voltage / low current reduces power lost due to the resistance of the wires. When you're dealing with long pieces of wire, the resistance adds up. Integrated circuits, however, are very small and though they are made of semiconductors (which are generally more resistive than metals) resistive losses aren't the big concern. In a semiconductor the important things are electric fields and charges moving about. Making a transistor work at low voltage means there are smaller potential barriers involved for charges to cross.
Yes, but it's likely that's a localised statistic. Unfortunately, peaceful uses of firearms are only a fraction of their world-wide application. Their primary use is the slaying of people in one of the planet's many current conflicts.
I feel that you are being a little close-minded. Yes, if you're an American, it's likely that your experience of public transport has been poor but there exists a whole world of cultures outside the US.
Busses move at the speed of the traffic or sometimes faster (assuming you live in a country where drivers let them into the flow of traffic, there exist bus / transit lanes, and intersections give busses priority) and rail can move significantly faster. When the system is well-managed and reasonably-funded, you don't have to plan your journey as services come often enough that any waiting is minimal.
Cars, trucks and roads will always be necessity for many decades yet but that doesn't mean societies can exist quite happily and prosperously taking the majority of their trips via mass transit.
Most of those advantages could have been delivered four decades ago, and could be delivered today, with a well-interconnected public transport system of rail, light rail and busses.
I have checked my facts and you are right, voting is legally compulsory. That said, though it is illegal, the option of informal voting still exists and carries no effective penalty as it is impossible to enforce. I will be more careful in how I phrase it in the future, but I stand by my assertion that the average person only has to turn up on the day and get their name ticked off.
I do concur with you that prepoll and postal votes remove the requirement to turn up on polling day, but felt that these exceptions were obvious and did not need to be stated (along with exceptions for those not old enough to vote, those who are ineligible to vote for other reasons et cetera).
I'd love to prevent stupid people from voting. Also religious nutjobs, those who support mandatory detention of asylum seekers, those who want to ban abortion, those who want to filter the internet, those who want to privatise the postal system... Actually, this country would be a much better place if all those stupid enough to have a differing opinion were just banned from voting altogether!
A democracy's greatest strength is that everybody's vote is of equal value. Its greatest weakness is that everybody''s vote is of equal value. If people are ill-informed/apathetic/stupid, the correct response is not to remove them from the political system (even if you do so only by removing the mechanism that forces them to attend) but to increase their education and interest.
A system like Australia's forces people to take a minimal level of interest in who is representing them in parliament. I believe this benefits all of Australia. In comparison to a system with voluntary turnout like that of the US, I believe that Australia has far less pandering and sensationalism in its politics, and the average man or woman is significantly more informed about their political choices.
Voting is not compulsory in Australia. Attendance on polling day is. What you do once you're in the booth is entirely your business. You may vote, or you may fold your ballot into a jaunty hat and draw a picture of a happy flower.
Voting is not compulsory in Australia. Attendance on polling day is. What you do once you get into the booth is entirely up to you. You could fill out your ballot and vote, or you could fold your ballot paper into a jaunty hat and sing the score from HMS Pinafore.
It's generally cheaper to host content outside Australia anyway. Australia has had a succession of ignorant and alarmist dickheads in the parliamentary portfolio for the internet. The current guy is no better, so I don't see either the state of internet censorship or the cost of hosting changing any time soon.
Slashdot Mirror
Language evolves. Accept it or become one of those guys who is constantly yelling at kids to get of his lawn. Both are viable life choices.
Word in the smart circles is that all of that shit is made out of string anyway, so that's where the real smart money is.
I'm not sure how this comment ended up as a reply to its parent. It was meant to be in response to the grand-parent, which was the tail of the thread when I was writing it.
The catalytic converter, which is an important part of the emissions control systems in a car, sits in between the engine and the tailpipe. It contains a honeycomb structure coated in a catalyst. For it to work at any real effectiveness, the honeycomb must have many densely-packed chambers the exhaust gasses are forced through.
The catalytic converter is therefore an impedance to the flow of exhaust gasses. In a four-stroke engine the exhaust gasses are pushed out by an up-sweep of the piston. If you restrict the exhaust, the piston "feels" the resistance. Imagine plugging the tailpipe entirely - the result isn't what you'd call "efficient."
There are also a few other complexities introduced with catalytic converters, like the fact that it's much harder to burn fuel lean.
I don't think you're right, even if I wish you were.
From the abstract of this study:
http://dspace.anu.edu.au/manakin/handle/1885/41761?show=full
"About 15 percent of Australians have experienced racism within institutional settings like the workplace and in education. About one-quarter of Australians report the experience of âeveryday racismsâ(TM)."
Ignoring racism and claiming it doesn't exist is not the best way to make it go away.
A small percentage of women have four types of cones. The distinction between the L and M cones is carried on the X chromosome. If a woman carries X chromosomes that each carry a different set of L/M photopigment genes, four-colour vision can result.
Tetrachomtatism is nothing though, if you talk to a mantis shrimp. A mantis shrimp has in 16 photoreceptor types in its eye: 12 different colours and 4 for sensing polarisation.
Because I only posted it a few minutes ago.
The three types of cones are generally referred to as L, M and S cones (for long, medium and short wavelength peak sensitivity) The S cones peak at what we call blue (~435nm), the M at green (~534nm) but the L do not peak at red. The L cones have a peak sensitivity at about yellow-green (~564nm).
We use red because red is way out the end of the visible spectrum and red light excites the L cones but not the M cones. If we were to use yellow-green we'd be exciting the M cones too much. The average person has about twice as many M cones than L or S cones, (we're very sensitive to green light) so yellow-green ends up exciting the M cones more than the L cones. By adjusting the amount of red (L cone excitation), green (M cone excitation) and blue (S cone excitation) we can replicate in the eye the cone response any visible colour would generate.
The human vision system is not like a camera - the cone response is only one part of a long and complex chain. Afterimages are somewhat a function of photo-pigment bleaching and later stages of visual processing in the nervous system and brain.
Cone response references:
Stockman, A. & Sharpe, L., "The spectral sensitivities of the middle- and long-wavelength-sensitive cone derived from measurements in observers of known genotype'', Vision Research, Volume 40, Issue 13, Pages 1711-1737, 16 June 2000
http://cvision.ucsd.edu/cones.htm
Don't be silly, young man. It's turtles all the way down.
Then I am equally confused, as the Firefox 2.0.0.12/Mac I just downloaded doesn't. Further, I can't find any option in the menus / preferences to turn it on.
Maybe the beta versions do, but the latest stable version on the Mac does not. There are also quite a few other things that make it disconcertingly "un-mac-like." That's the whole reason the Camino project exists.
Hopefully version 3 will bring Firefox on the Mac up to scratch.
Given his political history, I'd say Senator Conroy actually believes in the bullshit he's pushing.
The Labor Party (and, by the way, it's spelt that way) were quite clear in their promises before the election to attempt to filter the internet at ISP level. Maybe this will be a good lesson for you: next election you might actually bother to read the policies of the people you vote for.
I've taken the time to read through the document you link. First of all, it's not a peer-reviewed research document, but an amicus curiae brief, which is a very different thing. It may reference peer reviewed research, but it is written with specific motivation. I thought about writing up a long reply detailing specifically what I thought was wrong with it and why I ultimately found it unconvincing, but in the end life is too short. The highlights, however, were: comparing murder rates in the 1940s to today without acknowledging that one or two aspects of society have changed since then that have also affected the murder rate and equating various indication of crime in non-US countries without recognising that the cultures in these places are different. Honestly, some of the flaws in the document's reasoning were embarrassing and if this is the best argument for guns in society I'm absolutely astonished so many people subscribe to this point of view.
Speaking as an Australian, I'm quite glad this isn't really an option here.
If handguns are to work at all to deter assault or robbery, a reasonably high percentage of the general population has to be packing. Unfortunately when there are that many guns floating around it's likely the assailant / robber has one too and all you've done is increased the chances of somebody getting killed rather than just mugged or robbed.
In the end I'm not sure I buy the idea that handguns deter crime significantly anyway. Even if they did, given the rate at which they're used to inflict grievous harm by angry spouses, stupid children playing with them, and homeowners spooked by noises shooting themselves in the foot at night, I don't think having handguns distributed into society actually works to reduce overall human suffering.
You are correct about power lines. The high voltage / low current reduces power lost due to the resistance of the wires. When you're dealing with long pieces of wire, the resistance adds up. Integrated circuits, however, are very small and though they are made of semiconductors (which are generally more resistive than metals) resistive losses aren't the big concern. In a semiconductor the important things are electric fields and charges moving about. Making a transistor work at low voltage means there are smaller potential barriers involved for charges to cross.
Basically, anyway.
Yes, but it's likely that's a localised statistic. Unfortunately, peaceful uses of firearms are only a fraction of their world-wide application. Their primary use is the slaying of people in one of the planet's many current conflicts.
I feel that you are being a little close-minded. Yes, if you're an American, it's likely that your experience of public transport has been poor but there exists a whole world of cultures outside the US.
Busses move at the speed of the traffic or sometimes faster (assuming you live in a country where drivers let them into the flow of traffic, there exist bus / transit lanes, and intersections give busses priority) and rail can move significantly faster. When the system is well-managed and reasonably-funded, you don't have to plan your journey as services come often enough that any waiting is minimal.
Cars, trucks and roads will always be necessity for many decades yet but that doesn't mean societies can exist quite happily and prosperously taking the majority of their trips via mass transit.
Most of those advantages could have been delivered four decades ago, and could be delivered today, with a well-interconnected public transport system of rail, light rail and busses.
I have checked my facts and you are right, voting is legally compulsory. That said, though it is illegal, the option of informal voting still exists and carries no effective penalty as it is impossible to enforce. I will be more careful in how I phrase it in the future, but I stand by my assertion that the average person only has to turn up on the day and get their name ticked off.
I do concur with you that prepoll and postal votes remove the requirement to turn up on polling day, but felt that these exceptions were obvious and did not need to be stated (along with exceptions for those not old enough to vote, those who are ineligible to vote for other reasons et cetera).
I'd love to prevent stupid people from voting. Also religious nutjobs, those who support mandatory detention of asylum seekers, those who want to ban abortion, those who want to filter the internet, those who want to privatise the postal system... Actually, this country would be a much better place if all those stupid enough to have a differing opinion were just banned from voting altogether!
A democracy's greatest strength is that everybody's vote is of equal value. Its greatest weakness is that everybody''s vote is of equal value. If people are ill-informed/apathetic/stupid, the correct response is not to remove them from the political system (even if you do so only by removing the mechanism that forces them to attend) but to increase their education and interest.
A system like Australia's forces people to take a minimal level of interest in who is representing them in parliament. I believe this benefits all of Australia. In comparison to a system with voluntary turnout like that of the US, I believe that Australia has far less pandering and sensationalism in its politics, and the average man or woman is significantly more informed about their political choices.
Voting is not compulsory in Australia. Attendance on polling day is. What you do once you're in the booth is entirely your business. You may vote, or you may fold your ballot into a jaunty hat and draw a picture of a happy flower.
Voting is not compulsory in Australia. Attendance on polling day is. What you do once you get into the booth is entirely up to you. You could fill out your ballot and vote, or you could fold your ballot paper into a jaunty hat and sing the score from HMS Pinafore.
It's generally cheaper to host content outside Australia anyway. Australia has had a succession of ignorant and alarmist dickheads in the parliamentary portfolio for the internet. The current guy is no better, so I don't see either the state of internet censorship or the cost of hosting changing any time soon.