Nothing will cut through the greasey grimey shleck baked onto my oven.
Not toxic oven cleaner, not Brillo pads, not the self-cleaning feature (which uses exceptionally high temps to turn shit straight to ash). Anything that removes it only does so by removing the underlying steel and enamel of the oven itself.
your oven has evolved its own protective coating, and can be expected to survive longer than its parents did. Darwinism in action.
I had an old cheap washing machine with a mechanical timer. There were a normal and a permanent press cycle printed around the dial, and room for another cycle which was blank. Exploratory surgery revealed that the timer was in fact labelled with connections for a two speed motor which would provide a gentle cycle, as well as a gentler spin for the permanent press cycle, but this cheapo model had only the one speed motor. So, one cannibalized light dimmer later, the machine had two motor speeds and a third cycle to fill out the dial nicely. I'm pretty sure the difference in price between the two cycle and three cycle machines would have been more than whatever I spent for the dimmer.
Free ? Really ? only time i see "free" water are houses with a Well. Anyone on town/city water have to pay for it. mine costs me $318 every quarter.
typically, there's a fixed charge and an additional per gallon, which only kicks in over a certain volume. I've never come close to exceeding that, so my marginal cost is zero.
If you need more than three different cycles, you're doing it wrong. Try not leaving cruddy dishes accumulate for so long (or do them by hand in the first place).
That 'unrecoverable' error is telling you the waste ink system is saturated. Sure, you can reset the error if you know the trick. About a hundred or so power cycles later you'll discover that ink is leaking out of your printer and onto your [once] nice desk. They didn't do this to dick you, it is an engineering compromise. They could build in a replaceable waste ink system (as they do in higher end printers) but doing so would put the printer beyond the price point.
Printer companies want you to keep your printer as long as possible. They are not in the printer selling business; they sell their printers at cost or at a loss. They are in the ink selling business. Which printer you buy it for really makes no difference to them.
i bought a toyota because they had such a good reputation for reliability. well, i barely got 200 miles out of it before it stopped dead. they told me the tank of "gasoline" (?) was completely empty! apparently the engine had been consuming it and I need to keep refilling it, like you have to keep adding oil to an old junker that burns it! and they had the nerve to tell me that was normal!
Check out a documentary called "The Lightbulb Conspiracy" on planned obsolescence. They find a Canon or Epson printer with a chip inside that counts the number of prints made, and after some arbitrary number will throw an unrecoverable error essentially telling you it's time to buy a new printer. By the end of the movie, they've reset the chip without any hardware modifications and the printer continues printing just fine.
one manufacturer includes something called "telomeres" within the device, and as it ages, the telomeres become fewer, until the device fails irreparably.
Terrible design.
It's in its 10th? 20th? year and it seems that the battle to push the True Spirit of Xmas (tm) sales back to before Thanksgiving is being won by the Pro Santa Jesus forces.
This new 2 month holiday Christoweengiving is going way too far, in my opinion.
You know, why do you have to ruin your totally valid argument with a word like libtard? Gee, right wingers must be totally free of this kind of media manipulation, right? I mean, everything Fox News says is totally legit, and 100% free of rabble rousing, right? How about, just treat your fellow countrymen decently, as your fellow countrymen because that's the right thing to do.
Speaking of Fox; meanwhile back at the ranch: "http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/07/texas-looking-to-import-higher-levels-radioactive-trash.html"
Farmers don't make real money for anyone but the owner and few select ag services business individuals.
You nothing about agriculture if that's what you think. Most farmers are very well off. Especially after the commodity prices of the last 8 or 10 years.
I come from a farming community in the Midwest (mostly corn, soybeans, and livestock). The only farmers who are well off in my home town are those who inherited land. Farmland is incredibly expensive. According to Iowa State University the cost of growing corn is $887 per acre in 2015. This comes to $4.79 per bushel @ 185 bushels per acre.
Of that cost, $37 goes to farmers (4%) and $312 goes towards cash rent or equivalent (35%). Seed, fertilizers, and other additives make up another $386 (44%).
It is painfully obvious the only people making money off farming are the land owners and seed/fertilizer/herbicide/etc providers. Just like the GP said.
"The farmer is the man,
The farmer is the man.
Lives on credit 'til the fall,
With the interest rate so high, its a wonder he don't die,
And the middleman's the one who gets it all." http://sdpb.sd.gov/deadwoodson...
So for a change, family farms are actually more economically viable than large new upstart businesses operating as factory farms?
Depends on what you mean as "more economically viable." If a farmer is making $150,000 per year farming, but could be making $130,000 per year if he retired and rented his land out to a factory farming operation, is it really economically viable for him to remain a farmer? If he loves the job (like my father did) then more power to him. But in that case the farming is more of a hobby, while being a landlord (to himself) is his primary profession.
Factory farms make up for the low margins with scale. They don't make more money per acre than a family farmer other than through better practices their extra scale allows them to do. Like larger combine heads, computer driven tractors, better research into increasing crop yields, etc.
The real killer, though, is the conversion of farmland to bedroom communities for the booming urban financial hubs. The New Jersey farms I visited when I was a kid are now all suburbs of NYC.
And of course, suburbs of thriving Raleigh NC are going to need electricity from somewhere, which brings us back to the topic of the article.
So for a change, family farms are actually more economically viable than large new upstart businesses operating as factory farms?
Depends on what you mean as "more economically viable." If a farmer is making $150,000 per year farming, but could be making $130,000 per year if he retired and rented his land out to a factory farming operation, is it really economically viable for him to remain a farmer? If he loves the job (like my father did) then more power to him. But in that case the farming is more of a hobby, while being a landlord (to himself) is his primary profession.
Factory farms make up for the low margins with scale. They don't make more money per acre than a family farmer other than through better practices their extra scale allows them to do. Like larger combine heads, computer driven tractors, better research into increasing crop yields, etc.
And, of course, federal farm subsidies, which are pretty generally understood at this point to be merely handouts to big business donors, rather than the safety net for the struggling family farms which form the foundation of our ability to feed ourselves as a nation.
But for those who do not know yet "These subsidies do not,
for the most part, go to help struggling
family farmers. Instead, they reward the
largest, most profitable agribusinesses." http://www.thestranger.com/ima... Recipients of such subsidies have included such struggling farmers as Bruce Springsteen, Jon Bon Jovi, and Michele Bachmann.
So they claim it isn't the whole story, which seems fair. North Carolina in general has been very good about solar, and they've installed a massive amount in the state (to the point where they are running into problems with lack of storage during peak sunlight). However, the primary backlash was not so directed at the town as much as that one had many different people in the town saying really stupid things. Let's not forget that one of them was a retired science teacher. From the original article that started it all: http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/2015/12/08/woodland-rejects-solar-farm/:
Jane Mann said she is a local native and is concerned about the plants that make the community beautiful.
She is a retired Northampton science teacher and is concerned that photosynthesis, which depends upon sunlight, would not happen and would keep the plants from growing. She said she has observed areas near solar panels where the plants are brown and dead because they did not get enough sunlight.
She also questioned the high number of cancer deaths in the area, saying no one could tell her that solar panels didn’t cause cancer."
It sounds to me like this backlash is mainly pretty deserved. Even if they had legitimate reasons to say no to this new solar, it is clear that those were not the reasons articulated by the people in question.
Reporters were probably confused by the local accent. Mistook "retarded" for "retahred"
"Another resident warned that solar panels would suck up energy from the sun."
Well, technically this resident got it right.
They're just too stupid to understand that's kind of the fucking point of solar energy.
Congratulations North Carolina. It's not very often that Florida gets a laugh. This would be one of them.
"Whoa, Billy Lee, ah done gone blind!" "Rest yo mind Billy Lee, it's just those damn Yankees turning on the 'lectricity from the solar farm agin' and suckin' up all the laht"
Plants primarily use the Red and Blue portions of the EM spectrum. Could we build areas that harvest most of the Sunlight (especially Non-Red, Non-Blue frequencies) while supplying Plants directly beneath with enough overall light for growth? Many species of plants are quite shade tolerant. Does Corn for instance use all available light for growth or could lower levels still support near full growth?
This might be a particularly attractive strategy in arid areas. Solar Farms might do double duty as green houses to hold in moisture which is at a higher premium than light in those areas for agriculture.
interesting... the ultimate authority, wikipedia, tells us that the maximal efficiency for solar cells is in the near IR, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., which is indeed not in the band absorbed by chlorophyll or the anthrocyanins.
This is impressive. The North Carolina town that banned new solar farms because they were afraid they would soak up the sun sets the record straight and manages to sound even stupider.
Heiniger also denounced solar energy as a government-subsidized boondoggle that is “highly inefficient at producing energy.”
Solar farms are only less efficient than fossil fuel plants if you leave out the fact that you have to, you know, put fossil fuels in fossil fuel plants.
well, since the actual starting point for both solar power and fossil fuels is solar radiation, you'd have a hard time proving that the pathway through photosynthesis to fossil fuels to electrical generation is more efficient. It only works because you can use the fossilized solar energy a million times faster than it arrives at the surface in real time.
All those black or blue solar panels aren't 100% efficient, while they convert 1/5 of the sun's energy they absorb into electricity, the remaining 4/5 is emitted as heat. It nearly like taking those fields and paving them with asphalt, it is going to heat up the local area. Solar panels make sense on areas that are already black like a roof, but taking large undeveloped areas and installing panels you are just creating a large heat island. Let's not forget the reflections they make in latitudes further north where they are angled such that they reflect light into neighboring homes.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
In some case it makes more sense to collect the solar heat directly, rather than covert the light into electricity. Depends what you are going to use it for, and where you want to use it.
Require central AC to have a corresponding solar panel on the roof, to take the edge off the peak load on the grid on sunny summer afternoons, when the AC and the solar panels are both maxed out.
They get out of the bus or whatever, find the first yokels they see wandering the streets in the middle of the working day with time on their hands, and question them. If they get a long thoughtful answer, that will never fly on the TV news, so repeat until you get some simple sound byte, most likely doofish. Although the occasional halfway rational remark will make it to broadcast, to demonstrate "average Joe not as dumb as he looks. As long as it's short and simple, it flies.
The balance of proper scientific evidence suggests that giving up red meat would in fact make your life shorter, less healthy, and less happy. Vegetarians are more prone to depression and a range of diseases. See, for example, http://www.fathead-movie.com/i...
Except for the part where "For depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, and somatoform disorders and syndromes we found that on average the adoption of the vegetarian diet follows the onset of mental disorders." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
Also, sometimes correlation is evidence of causation. Not always, of course, but sometimes correlation is most certainly an indicator of causation.
Of course, you're correct, but 'correlation != causation' is one of the phrases that idiots will always post as a response to every science article that mentions correlation, and it will always be modded insightful even though it is just a trite throwaway slogan.
As a statistician, the formulation I prefer is 'correlation does not necessarily imply causation.' Which has the benefit of being true, but the drawback of not being as useful for mindlessly gainsaying the result of any study, so you don't see it much on line.
for that matter, lack of correlation doesn't always mean lack of causation, but you better have a damn good explanation.
There's a LOT of scientific advances that are triggered by somebody taking a second look at something utterly obvious, and either testing it or formalizing it.
take "heavier things fall faster, obviously" for instance
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing will cut through the greasey grimey shleck baked onto my oven.
Not toxic oven cleaner, not Brillo pads, not the self-cleaning feature (which uses exceptionally high temps to turn shit straight to ash). Anything that removes it only does so by removing the underlying steel and enamel of the oven itself.
your oven has evolved its own protective coating, and can be expected to survive longer than its parents did.
Darwinism in action.
I had an old cheap washing machine with a mechanical timer. There were a normal and a permanent press cycle printed around the dial, and room for another cycle which was blank. Exploratory surgery revealed that the timer was in fact labelled with connections for a two speed motor which would provide a gentle cycle, as well as a gentler spin for the permanent press cycle, but this cheapo model had only the one speed motor. So, one cannibalized light dimmer later, the machine had two motor speeds and a third cycle to fill out the dial nicely. I'm pretty sure the difference in price between the two cycle and three cycle machines would have been more than whatever I spent for the dimmer.
Free ? Really ? only time i see "free" water are houses with a Well. Anyone on town/city water have to pay for it. mine costs me $318 every quarter.
typically, there's a fixed charge and an additional per gallon, which only kicks in over a certain volume. I've never come close to exceeding that, so my marginal cost is zero.
If you need more than three different cycles, you're doing it wrong. Try not leaving cruddy dishes accumulate for so long (or do them by hand in the first place).
pretreatment by a dog can be useful.
That 'unrecoverable' error is telling you the waste ink system is saturated. Sure, you can reset the error if you know the trick. About a hundred or so power cycles later you'll discover that ink is leaking out of your printer and onto your [once] nice desk. They didn't do this to dick you, it is an engineering compromise. They could build in a replaceable waste ink system (as they do in higher end printers) but doing so would put the printer beyond the price point. Printer companies want you to keep your printer as long as possible. They are not in the printer selling business; they sell their printers at cost or at a loss. They are in the ink selling business. Which printer you buy it for really makes no difference to them.
i bought a toyota because they had such a good reputation for reliability. well, i barely got 200 miles out of it before it stopped dead. they told me the tank of "gasoline" (?) was completely empty! apparently the engine had been consuming it and I need to keep refilling it, like you have to keep adding oil to an old junker that burns it! and they had the nerve to tell me that was normal!
Check out a documentary called "The Lightbulb Conspiracy" on planned obsolescence. They find a Canon or Epson printer with a chip inside that counts the number of prints made, and after some arbitrary number will throw an unrecoverable error essentially telling you it's time to buy a new printer. By the end of the movie, they've reset the chip without any hardware modifications and the printer continues printing just fine.
one manufacturer includes something called "telomeres" within the device, and as it ages, the telomeres become fewer, until the device fails irreparably.
Terrible design.
It's in its 10th? 20th? year and it seems that the battle to push the True Spirit of Xmas (tm) sales back to before Thanksgiving is being won by the Pro Santa Jesus forces.
This new 2 month holiday Christoweengiving is going way too far, in my opinion.
So I left the US roughly 2 years ago, and I've been dying to know. How's the War on Christmas turning out this year?
There's a lot of worry about sleeper cells. Such as Santa's two new reindeer, Abdul and Jamal.
You know, why do you have to ruin your totally valid argument with a word like libtard? Gee, right wingers must be totally free of this kind of media manipulation, right? I mean, everything Fox News says is totally legit, and 100% free of rabble rousing, right? How about, just treat your fellow countrymen decently, as your fellow countrymen because that's the right thing to do.
Speaking of Fox; meanwhile back at the ranch:
"http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/07/texas-looking-to-import-higher-levels-radioactive-trash.html"
Farmers don't make real money for anyone but the owner and few select ag services business individuals.
You nothing about agriculture if that's what you think. Most farmers are very well off. Especially after the commodity prices of the last 8 or 10 years.
I come from a farming community in the Midwest (mostly corn, soybeans, and livestock). The only farmers who are well off in my home town are those who inherited land. Farmland is incredibly expensive. According to Iowa State University the cost of growing corn is $887 per acre in 2015. This comes to $4.79 per bushel @ 185 bushels per acre.
Of that cost, $37 goes to farmers (4%) and $312 goes towards cash rent or equivalent (35%). Seed, fertilizers, and other additives make up another $386 (44%).
It is painfully obvious the only people making money off farming are the land owners and seed/fertilizer/herbicide/etc providers. Just like the GP said.
"The farmer is the man,
The farmer is the man.
Lives on credit 'til the fall,
With the interest rate so high, its a wonder he don't die,
And the middleman's the one who gets it all." http://sdpb.sd.gov/deadwoodson...
So for a change, family farms are actually more economically viable than large new upstart businesses operating as factory farms?
Depends on what you mean as "more economically viable." If a farmer is making $150,000 per year farming, but could be making $130,000 per year if he retired and rented his land out to a factory farming operation, is it really economically viable for him to remain a farmer? If he loves the job (like my father did) then more power to him. But in that case the farming is more of a hobby, while being a landlord (to himself) is his primary profession.
Factory farms make up for the low margins with scale. They don't make more money per acre than a family farmer other than through better practices their extra scale allows them to do. Like larger combine heads, computer driven tractors, better research into increasing crop yields, etc.
The real killer, though, is the conversion of farmland to bedroom communities for the booming urban financial hubs. The New Jersey farms I visited when I was a kid are now all suburbs of NYC.
And of course, suburbs of thriving Raleigh NC are going to need electricity from somewhere, which brings us back to the topic of the article.
So for a change, family farms are actually more economically viable than large new upstart businesses operating as factory farms?
Depends on what you mean as "more economically viable." If a farmer is making $150,000 per year farming, but could be making $130,000 per year if he retired and rented his land out to a factory farming operation, is it really economically viable for him to remain a farmer? If he loves the job (like my father did) then more power to him. But in that case the farming is more of a hobby, while being a landlord (to himself) is his primary profession.
Factory farms make up for the low margins with scale. They don't make more money per acre than a family farmer other than through better practices their extra scale allows them to do. Like larger combine heads, computer driven tractors, better research into increasing crop yields, etc.
And, of course, federal farm subsidies, which are pretty generally understood at this point to be merely handouts to big business donors, rather than the safety net for the struggling family farms which form the foundation of our ability to feed ourselves as a nation.
But for those who do not know yet
"These subsidies do not, for the most part, go to help struggling family farmers. Instead, they reward the largest, most profitable agribusinesses." http://www.thestranger.com/ima...
Recipients of such subsidies have included such struggling farmers as Bruce Springsteen, Jon Bon Jovi, and Michele Bachmann.
So they claim it isn't the whole story, which seems fair. North Carolina in general has been very good about solar, and they've installed a massive amount in the state (to the point where they are running into problems with lack of storage during peak sunlight). However, the primary backlash was not so directed at the town as much as that one had many different people in the town saying really stupid things. Let's not forget that one of them was a retired science teacher. From the original article that started it all: http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/2015/12/08/woodland-rejects-solar-farm/:
Jane Mann said she is a local native and is concerned about the plants that make the community beautiful. She is a retired Northampton science teacher and is concerned that photosynthesis, which depends upon sunlight, would not happen and would keep the plants from growing. She said she has observed areas near solar panels where the plants are brown and dead because they did not get enough sunlight. She also questioned the high number of cancer deaths in the area, saying no one could tell her that solar panels didn’t cause cancer."
It sounds to me like this backlash is mainly pretty deserved. Even if they had legitimate reasons to say no to this new solar, it is clear that those were not the reasons articulated by the people in question.
Reporters were probably confused by the local accent. Mistook "retarded" for "retahred"
"Another resident warned that solar panels would suck up energy from the sun."
Well, technically this resident got it right.
They're just too stupid to understand that's kind of the fucking point of solar energy.
Congratulations North Carolina. It's not very often that Florida gets a laugh. This would be one of them.
"Whoa, Billy Lee, ah done gone blind!"
"Rest yo mind Billy Lee, it's just those damn Yankees turning on the 'lectricity from the solar farm agin' and suckin' up all the laht"
Plants primarily use the Red and Blue portions of the EM spectrum. Could we build areas that harvest most of the Sunlight (especially Non-Red, Non-Blue frequencies) while supplying Plants directly beneath with enough overall light for growth? Many species of plants are quite shade tolerant. Does Corn for instance use all available light for growth or could lower levels still support near full growth?
This might be a particularly attractive strategy in arid areas. Solar Farms might do double duty as green houses to hold in moisture which is at a higher premium than light in those areas for agriculture.
interesting... the ultimate authority, wikipedia, tells us that the maximal efficiency for solar cells is in the near IR, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., which is indeed not in the band absorbed by chlorophyll or the anthrocyanins.
But all those solar farms are going to displace the tobacco farms.
This is impressive. The North Carolina town that banned new solar farms because they were afraid they would soak up the sun sets the record straight and manages to sound even stupider.
Solar farms are only less efficient than fossil fuel plants if you leave out the fact that you have to, you know, put fossil fuels in fossil fuel plants.
well, since the actual starting point for both solar power and fossil fuels is solar radiation, you'd have a hard time proving that the pathway through photosynthesis to fossil fuels to electrical generation is more efficient. It only works because you can use the fossilized solar energy a million times faster than it arrives at the surface in real time.
All those black or blue solar panels aren't 100% efficient, while they convert 1/5 of the sun's energy they absorb into electricity, the remaining 4/5 is emitted as heat. It nearly like taking those fields and paving them with asphalt, it is going to heat up the local area. Solar panels make sense on areas that are already black like a roof, but taking large undeveloped areas and installing panels you are just creating a large heat island. Let's not forget the reflections they make in latitudes further north where they are angled such that they reflect light into neighboring homes. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
In some case it makes more sense to collect the solar heat directly, rather than covert the light into electricity. Depends what you are going to use it for, and where you want to use it.
Require central AC to have a corresponding solar panel on the roof, to take the edge off the peak load on the grid on sunny summer afternoons, when the AC and the solar panels are both maxed out.
They get out of the bus or whatever, find the first yokels they see wandering the streets in the middle of the working day with time on their hands, and question them. If they get a long thoughtful answer, that will never fly on the TV news, so repeat until you get some simple sound byte, most likely doofish. Although the occasional halfway rational remark will make it to broadcast, to demonstrate "average Joe not as dumb as he looks. As long as it's short and simple, it flies.
The balance of proper scientific evidence suggests that giving up red meat would in fact make your life shorter, less healthy, and less happy. Vegetarians are more prone to depression and a range of diseases. See, for example, http://www.fathead-movie.com/i...
Except for the part where
"For depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, and somatoform disorders and syndromes we found that on average the adoption of the vegetarian diet follows the onset of mental disorders." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
Of course, you're correct, but 'correlation != causation' is one of the phrases that idiots will always post as a response to every science article that mentions correlation, and it will always be modded insightful even though it is just a trite throwaway slogan.
As a statistician, the formulation I prefer is 'correlation does not necessarily imply causation.' Which has the benefit of being true, but the drawback of not being as useful for mindlessly gainsaying the result of any study, so you don't see it much on line.
for that matter, lack of correlation doesn't always mean lack of causation, but you better have a damn good explanation.
There's a LOT of scientific advances that are triggered by somebody taking a second look at something utterly obvious, and either testing it or formalizing it.
take "heavier things fall faster, obviously" for instance
It's H1B, not HB1, ya drunk.
Maybe it's the pencils. We don't see many HB1s. Mostly HB2s.
The Cause For all Modern Day Cancers
Not true! Liberal Luddite Lies! Many modern day cancers are due to power companies, either dirty old coal, or leaky nukes!