So we can just let the nuclear waste, instead of people, circle the rail line until a destination is found. Or where ever the train happens to break down/derail. Then that becomes the new repository for all nuclear waste by default.
I bought two Anker batteries for my Galaxy S3. They were considerably better than the stock battery when new. They swelled after sometime over a year and didn't hold a charge as long as when new. But I don't think the stock batter lasted much more than a year either. Actually, I'm pretty sure even after being degraded, they held a better charge than the stock battery when new.
I also have a rechargeable battery that can be connected to a phone via USB to charger the phone. It works great. I also bought a USB 3 PCIE card from them. It started getting flakey after 6 months. I sent them an email and was surprised to get a response in a day or two. All they asked for was the serial number for quality control purposes and shipped me a new one at no charge.
I've also received multiple emails from them asking me to contact them if I had any issues with any product I've purchased from them. From my experience, they seem to have above average products, though not spectacular. However their customer service is outstanding.
In this case the "victim" was granted a monopoly by us. Big difference between fraud and a monopoly abusing a PRIVILAGE we the people granted it and now they are lobbying all over the world to make international criminal law... oh wait.
Then the appropriate action is for "the people" to rescind the monopoly, isn't it? Though I'm not sure how you can consider a movie a monopoly. It's entertainment.
This is not a crime and there is no victimization. Nothing is being stolen.
If "we the people" put lawmakers in office that make this a crime, then that's what it is. Not that I agree with this one, but that's how laws work.
It's called "intellectual property". Again, it's not really a term I agree with. However it is considered property. And by giving it away, you are hampering the owners ability to make money off of it. How much? I really don't know. No one does. The *IAA's of the world ridiculously over inflate the amount. Then people like you claim that nothing is lost. The amount is somewhere in the middle, though I have no idea where. Regardless, someone (person or corporation) spent a bunch of money making this movie and they should be able to try to make money off of it. If you don't agree, then don't pay to see it.
The law on the books right now indicates this is a crime. Even if you and I don't agree with how it's dealt with. That's not how laws work. People don't get to choose on an individual basis if a law is stupid or not. That's part of living in a society. Perhaps you forgot to give someone their french fries at the drive through. They don't get to decide that anti-murder laws are a stupid idea and shoot you.
If you don't like the law, then you either do what you can to fix it, try to overthrow the government that enforces it, go to another country where the majority of the people think like you do, or move to an island somewhere and start your own society.
The person recording videos just disagrees with what is clearly out of line. It is a civil matter. The worst that can happen in civil matters in the US is one party can force the other into debt or bankruptcy.
If they want to disagree with it, that's fine. Then don't go to the movie theater. Stand outside and boycott it. Draw others to your cause. I didn't read about this case, but I doubt this has anything to do with protesting injustice.
Even being a civil matter. I don't think it's right that a persons life can be ruined over something as stupid as this. Having jail time on your record, or being forced to pay mountainous sums of money does no one any good. But please don't act like these people are some kind of freedom fighters or innocent victims.
Seems like Google needs to look up the word "limit" in its own dictionary.
Just because others break the law is no excuse for Google to do so.
On one hand I agree with you. Technically speaking, the law is the law.
However It's obvious you've never driven on the NJ Turn Pike. I remember the first time I did 20-some years ago. I initially set my cruise control at 5 mph over the limit. Little old ladies were passing me like I was parked and flipping me the bird. Two people passed me on the shoulder at close to 100 mph. Frankly, just going 10 mph over the limit was dangerous. I settled on 75 to 80 mph as well over half the other cars were still passing me. This was back when the limit was 55 mph.
Back when the speed federal speed limits were 55 mph there was a group of several hundred people who drove on the DC beltway at 55 mph one day during the work week. It snarled traffic as no one drove that slow on the beltway.
If the police enforced the speeding laws at zero tolerance, then of course the Google cars should not speed. But the reality is, is you can easily go 5 over, and even 15 over in many areas with no chance of getting pulled over. So you have roads where the posted limit is 65, but the average speed in the drive lane is closer to 80 mph. Adding cars that are only going 65 is going to be a major problem. Either the driver is going to have to disengage the "auto-pilot", or risk getting run off the road. I'm not saying it right, but that's how it is in the real world.
Interestingly when M.C. Escher paintings were analyzed it kept returning "divide by zero errors". Upon further examination, it was discovered that it was claiming "divide by the letter "O" errors" and not the number zero.
many courtrooms do not allow recording or electronic devices. thus, the courtroom sketches and transcribing of proceedings in realtime.
Except the court reporter is generally exempt from such rules. I used to be one. Most of the time the record is keyed real time. However you can't always get it all and be 100% every time. The recording is used to clean up the transcription after the fact.
The ban of recording devices is for the general public and reporters.
We're talking about a TV show. I've seen clips of CSI. They don't let reality get in the way of a stupid story. A good story would be one hell of a step up.
A pond is a little bit different than the ocean. Copper is fairly toxic to marine invertebrates. With it already being a given that the invertebrates in the area of the bloom are going to die; the question becomes how many will die from a large amount of copper drifting out of that area. And will it even be all that effective with the kinds of currents that are in the ocean. You can saturate a pond, even 400 acres. It will take some time for the copper concentration to wash out. In the ocean it could wash out in a matter of minutes, or hours. And that's not even considering the shear volume. I'm guessing that the pond you mentioned has no where near the depth that many of these areas in the ocean that are being affected.
The three cases in question (evolution, global warming, and vaccines) have all been around for more than 100 years. The practice of science (or natural philosophy) is not 500 years old,
Humans have been observing and recording those observations in order to make sense of the universe since before we even had a concept of what the universe was.
Provided we don't destroy ourselves or our civilization, and baring global catastrophes, I'm guessing that what we believe now will seem pretty damn primitive in another 2500 years.
Even so, none of the three examples will be overturned after 500 years. It is implausible that we will eventually find out that vaccines actually don't work
No, but the ones we use today will seem pretty primitive in another 100 years.
or that evolution isn't really happening, etc. We have observed all of these.
I would like to think that evolution will not be disproved. From what we can observe at the moment it certainly makes the most sense. But who knows what the future will bring. We've certainly been way off on our observations in the past. It wouldn't be the first time that a theory that was well accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community has been discarded either.
That was my entire point. Opinions change as new data presents itself. You should never simply stop looking. Sometimes the world can surprise you.
because the conclusions of Silent Spring are somehow invalid and pesticides are so safe you could just gobble them up willy nilly?
Don't be stupid. There's a profound difference between using something responsibly and being a complete moron. Drinking too much water can kill you. Mercury can kill you, but we put it in CFL fluorescent lamps. Many cleaning products are toxic. Do you have a hard time not drinking or eating them?
Many of the conclusions in Silent Spring are questionable, at best I'm sure there is validity to some, or even much of it. But that's how you make a good lie, isn't it? I'd like to think that Rachel Carson had the best of intentions with this book. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
you can try to impugn one side by saying bias, and defend the other by again claiming bias, but that's irrelevent. the science says what it will, and if you follow the science, that's all that matters.
Science doesn't say anything. It's our, as a race, interpretations of what we observe. It doesn't take sides or have opinions. If the observations are wrong, then most of the time the conclusions are also wrong.
in the case of evolution, global warming, or vaccines the science says "its real", "its happening" and "they work". end of story.
There is no "end of story". Yes vaccines work. But that doesn't mean we should stop. They can always work better, or be improved. Some vaccines have had terrible side effects in the past. We should keep working to improve them.
Obviously AWG is occurring. But if it's "end of story" we should stop spending money on proving it further, shouldn't we? But it's a very complex problem, and all of the politics and money involved on both sides has clouded this issue almost beyond comprehension. As if it wasn't difficult enough without all the noise.
Scientific theories are disproved, revised and improved upon all the time. That's the very nature of science. There is no "end of story". It's a journey, not a destination. How many scientific theories have lasted 500 years? 100 years? Or even 50 years?
Or like the way that, in the name of safety, we've removed trees from the sides of roads because drivers kept hitting them. Now drivers go even faster on those same roads and hit pedestrians who are no longer protected by the trees. How's that for progress?
Or how better tire tech, anti-lock brakes and just better braking systems have caused people to stop later, drive closer to the car ahead of them, and be less cautious in bad weather?
I liked the days of chrome spears in the drivers compartment. At least then you knew the person driving like crazy was serious as they knew that one mistake could skewer their skull on the chrome dashboard accents.
A Mantis Shrimp can strike its prey in 8 milliseconds according to the link. Granted, its a little slower, but it's also underwater and that strike has the force of 1500 Newtons. Actually, it's probably a little faster as that time includes strikes from two different appendages and the time it takes for two cavitation bubbles to collapse.
From this link: Peacock mantis shrimp use a hammer-like appendage to smash open snail shells for food. Not only did high speed imaging reveal that peacock mantis shrimp forelimbs reach maximum speeds from 12-23 m/s (in water!), but it also showed that cavitation bubbles were forming between the appendage and snail shell. We found that, as a result of the limb's extraordinary speed, the water cavitates (vaporizes) when the limb strikes the prey. Cavitation is a destructive phenomenon; when these vapor bubbles collapse, they essentially cause a small implosion in the water which produces heat, light and sound. For example, rapidly rotating boat propellers are often badly damaged by cavitation to the point of developing holes in the metal.
By linking high speed imaging with force sensors and acoustic sensors, we were able to show that mantis shrimp wield two types of strike forces â" the first force is due to the appendage physically striking the snail shell and the second is due to the collapse of the cavitation bubble. Thus, for each predatory strike, mantis shrimp work like jack-hammers with a series of four force peaks from the impact of the first appendage, the collapse of the first cavitation bubble and then the impact of the second appendage and the collapse of the second cavitation bubble. All of this happens in less than 800 Âs, with peak forces of 1500 N (over 2500 times the animalâ(TM)s body weight).
We could power all our electricity needs, 24/7 with solar. It would probably take about 10 years and 30 billion dollars.
Do you happen to feel like Dr. Evil demanding "one-million-dollars"? I'm guessing you meant 30 trillion dollars.
The largest solar plant Ivanpah cost $2.2 billion and can generate close to 400 megawatts. I don't think 13 or 14 of those is going to cut it.
$30 billion would probably be enough to build 7 nuclear plants. Assuming the cost would be similar to the cost of the Watts Bar 2 reactor Considering Watts Bar 2 will produce close to 3 times what Ivanpah can, it's going to be a little more than a couple billion.
I could have sworn that there was a non militarization of space treaty in place
That thing was drafted nearly 50 years ago, when just a handful of nations could manage to put a potato in orbit. That's such 20th century thinking. Welcome to the new age.
Anything that uses a distributor with points? Hell, anything that has a distributor has a very limited ECM at best, and certainly not one you can access wirelessly, or via a simple port of some kind.
Slashdot Mirror
So we can just let the nuclear waste, instead of people, circle the rail line until a destination is found. Or where ever the train happens to break down/derail. Then that becomes the new repository for all nuclear waste by default.
One of the articles cited says the car "produces zero emissions". Perhaps we can coin a new phrase for electric cars: "zero direct emissions".
I usually refer to it as "remote emissions". But "zero direct emissions" probably sounds better from a marketing standpoint.
Ah, but it ain't over yet! Let's just see what else they get..
An all expenses paid, one way trip to Cuba would be my guess.
I bought two Anker batteries for my Galaxy S3. They were considerably better than the stock battery when new. They swelled after sometime over a year and didn't hold a charge as long as when new. But I don't think the stock batter lasted much more than a year either. Actually, I'm pretty sure even after being degraded, they held a better charge than the stock battery when new.
I also have a rechargeable battery that can be connected to a phone via USB to charger the phone. It works great. I also bought a USB 3 PCIE card from them. It started getting flakey after 6 months. I sent them an email and was surprised to get a response in a day or two. All they asked for was the serial number for quality control purposes and shipped me a new one at no charge.
I've also received multiple emails from them asking me to contact them if I had any issues with any product I've purchased from them. From my experience, they seem to have above average products, though not spectacular. However their customer service is outstanding.
Obviously it was faked. Just like the moon landing. Here's all the proof you need
In this case the "victim" was granted a monopoly by us. Big difference between fraud and a monopoly abusing a PRIVILAGE we the people granted it and now they are lobbying all over the world to make international criminal law... oh wait.
Then the appropriate action is for "the people" to rescind the monopoly, isn't it? Though I'm not sure how you can consider a movie a monopoly. It's entertainment.
This is not a crime and there is no victimization. Nothing is being stolen.
If "we the people" put lawmakers in office that make this a crime, then that's what it is. Not that I agree with this one, but that's how laws work.
It's called "intellectual property". Again, it's not really a term I agree with. However it is considered property. And by giving it away, you are hampering the owners ability to make money off of it. How much? I really don't know. No one does. The *IAA's of the world ridiculously over inflate the amount. Then people like you claim that nothing is lost. The amount is somewhere in the middle, though I have no idea where. Regardless, someone (person or corporation) spent a bunch of money making this movie and they should be able to try to make money off of it. If you don't agree, then don't pay to see it.
The law on the books right now indicates this is a crime. Even if you and I don't agree with how it's dealt with. That's not how laws work. People don't get to choose on an individual basis if a law is stupid or not. That's part of living in a society. Perhaps you forgot to give someone their french fries at the drive through. They don't get to decide that anti-murder laws are a stupid idea and shoot you.
If you don't like the law, then you either do what you can to fix it, try to overthrow the government that enforces it, go to another country where the majority of the people think like you do, or move to an island somewhere and start your own society.
The person recording videos just disagrees with what is clearly out of line. It is a civil matter. The worst that can happen in civil matters in the US is one party can force the other into debt or bankruptcy.
If they want to disagree with it, that's fine. Then don't go to the movie theater. Stand outside and boycott it. Draw others to your cause. I didn't read about this case, but I doubt this has anything to do with protesting injustice.
Even being a civil matter. I don't think it's right that a persons life can be ruined over something as stupid as this. Having jail time on your record, or being forced to pay mountainous sums of money does no one any good. But please don't act like these people are some kind of freedom fighters or innocent victims.
Seems like Google needs to look up the word "limit" in its own dictionary.
Just because others break the law is no excuse for Google to do so.
On one hand I agree with you. Technically speaking, the law is the law.
However It's obvious you've never driven on the NJ Turn Pike. I remember the first time I did 20-some years ago. I initially set my cruise control at 5 mph over the limit. Little old ladies were passing me like I was parked and flipping me the bird. Two people passed me on the shoulder at close to 100 mph. Frankly, just going 10 mph over the limit was dangerous. I settled on 75 to 80 mph as well over half the other cars were still passing me. This was back when the limit was 55 mph.
Back when the speed federal speed limits were 55 mph there was a group of several hundred people who drove on the DC beltway at 55 mph one day during the work week. It snarled traffic as no one drove that slow on the beltway.
If the police enforced the speeding laws at zero tolerance, then of course the Google cars should not speed. But the reality is, is you can easily go 5 over, and even 15 over in many areas with no chance of getting pulled over. So you have roads where the posted limit is 65, but the average speed in the drive lane is closer to 80 mph. Adding cars that are only going 65 is going to be a major problem. Either the driver is going to have to disengage the "auto-pilot", or risk getting run off the road. I'm not saying it right, but that's how it is in the real world.
Yes, but think of all the new medical breakthroughs and publications that will be coming out of China in the next few years. ;-)
Interestingly when M.C. Escher paintings were analyzed it kept returning "divide by zero errors". Upon further examination, it was discovered that it was claiming "divide by the letter "O" errors" and not the number zero.
My pet rock says otherwise, you insensitive clod!
My dog just said, "Video, or it didn't happen." ;-)
Maybe it doesn't know any better. Rocks aren't exactly known for their keen intelligence.
many courtrooms do not allow recording or electronic devices. thus, the courtroom sketches and transcribing of proceedings in realtime.
Except the court reporter is generally exempt from such rules. I used to be one. Most of the time the record is keyed real time. However you can't always get it all and be 100% every time. The recording is used to clean up the transcription after the fact.
The ban of recording devices is for the general public and reporters.
Get in the way of a good story.
We're talking about a TV show. I've seen clips of CSI. They don't let reality get in the way of a stupid story. A good story would be one hell of a step up.
You know, some of us walk around with our heads pointing to the sky with a 800cm^2 magnifying glass over us. You insensitive clod!
I hope you live in Seattle or Portland. And have some Joo Janta 200 sunglasses and an awfully large Aloe Vera garden.
A pond is a little bit different than the ocean. Copper is fairly toxic to marine invertebrates. With it already being a given that the invertebrates in the area of the bloom are going to die; the question becomes how many will die from a large amount of copper drifting out of that area. And will it even be all that effective with the kinds of currents that are in the ocean. You can saturate a pond, even 400 acres. It will take some time for the copper concentration to wash out. In the ocean it could wash out in a matter of minutes, or hours. And that's not even considering the shear volume. I'm guessing that the pond you mentioned has no where near the depth that many of these areas in the ocean that are being affected.
The three cases in question (evolution, global warming, and vaccines) have all been around for more than 100 years. The practice of science (or natural philosophy) is not 500 years old,
Humans have been observing and recording those observations in order to make sense of the universe since before we even had a concept of what the universe was.
The move towards a rational understanding of nature began at least since the Archaic period in Greece (650 â" 480 BCE) with the Pre-Socratic philosophers. The philosopher Thales of Miletus (7th and 6th centuries BCE), dubbed "the Father of Science" for refusing to accept various supernatural, religious or mythological explanations for natural phenomena, proclaimed that every event had a natural cause.
Provided we don't destroy ourselves or our civilization, and baring global catastrophes, I'm guessing that what we believe now will seem pretty damn primitive in another 2500 years.
Even so, none of the three examples will be overturned after 500 years. It is implausible that we will eventually find out that vaccines actually don't work
No, but the ones we use today will seem pretty primitive in another 100 years.
or that evolution isn't really happening, etc. We have observed all of these.
I would like to think that evolution will not be disproved. From what we can observe at the moment it certainly makes the most sense. But who knows what the future will bring. We've certainly been way off on our observations in the past. It wouldn't be the first time that a theory that was well accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community has been discarded either.
That was my entire point. Opinions change as new data presents itself. You should never simply stop looking. Sometimes the world can surprise you.
because the conclusions of Silent Spring are somehow invalid and pesticides are so safe you could just gobble them up willy nilly?
Don't be stupid. There's a profound difference between using something responsibly and being a complete moron. Drinking too much water can kill you. Mercury can kill you, but we put it in CFL fluorescent lamps. Many cleaning products are toxic. Do you have a hard time not drinking or eating them?
Many of the conclusions in Silent Spring are questionable, at best I'm sure there is validity to some, or even much of it. But that's how you make a good lie, isn't it? I'd like to think that Rachel Carson had the best of intentions with this book. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
you can try to impugn one side by saying bias, and defend the other by again claiming bias, but that's irrelevent. the science says what it will, and if you follow the science, that's all that matters.
Science doesn't say anything. It's our, as a race, interpretations of what we observe. It doesn't take sides or have opinions. If the observations are wrong, then most of the time the conclusions are also wrong.
in the case of evolution, global warming, or vaccines the science says "its real", "its happening" and "they work". end of story.
There is no "end of story". Yes vaccines work. But that doesn't mean we should stop. They can always work better, or be improved. Some vaccines have had terrible side effects in the past. We should keep working to improve them.
Obviously AWG is occurring. But if it's "end of story" we should stop spending money on proving it further, shouldn't we? But it's a very complex problem, and all of the politics and money involved on both sides has clouded this issue almost beyond comprehension. As if it wasn't difficult enough without all the noise.
Scientific theories are disproved, revised and improved upon all the time. That's the very nature of science. There is no "end of story". It's a journey, not a destination. How many scientific theories have lasted 500 years? 100 years? Or even 50 years?
You read it here first!
Last December,
No, no I didn't (ok, actually, yes I did. But I could've heard it eight months ago)
More like 180 months ago.
I'm more shocked that Infinity doesn't have some sort of sensor in the drivers seat to make sure there is actually somebody behind the wheel.
Or like the way that, in the name of safety, we've removed trees from the sides of roads because drivers kept hitting them. Now drivers go even faster on those same roads and hit pedestrians who are no longer protected by the trees. How's that for progress?
Or how better tire tech, anti-lock brakes and just better braking systems have caused people to stop later, drive closer to the car ahead of them, and be less cautious in bad weather?
I liked the days of chrome spears in the drivers compartment. At least then you knew the person driving like crazy was serious as they knew that one mistake could skewer their skull on the chrome dashboard accents.
A Mantis Shrimp can strike its prey in 8 milliseconds according to the link. Granted, its a little slower, but it's also underwater and that strike has the force of 1500 Newtons. Actually, it's probably a little faster as that time includes strikes from two different appendages and the time it takes for two cavitation bubbles to collapse.
From this link: Peacock mantis shrimp use a hammer-like appendage to smash open snail shells for food. Not only did high speed imaging reveal that peacock mantis shrimp forelimbs reach maximum speeds from 12-23 m/s (in water!), but it also showed that cavitation bubbles were forming between the appendage and snail shell. We found that, as a result of the limb's extraordinary speed, the water cavitates (vaporizes) when the limb strikes the prey. Cavitation is a destructive phenomenon; when these vapor bubbles collapse, they essentially cause a small implosion in the water which produces heat, light and sound. For example, rapidly rotating boat propellers are often badly damaged by cavitation to the point of developing holes in the metal.
By linking high speed imaging with force sensors and acoustic sensors, we were able to show that mantis shrimp wield two types of strike forces â" the first force is due to the appendage physically striking the snail shell and the second is due to the collapse of the cavitation bubble. Thus, for each predatory strike, mantis shrimp work like jack-hammers with a series of four force peaks from the impact of the first appendage, the collapse of the first cavitation bubble and then the impact of the second appendage and the collapse of the second cavitation bubble. All of this happens in less than 800 Âs, with peak forces of 1500 N (over 2500 times the animalâ(TM)s body weight).
We could power all our electricity needs, 24/7 with solar. It would probably take about 10 years and 30 billion dollars.
Do you happen to feel like Dr. Evil demanding "one-million-dollars"? I'm guessing you meant 30 trillion dollars.
The largest solar plant Ivanpah cost $2.2 billion and can generate close to 400 megawatts. I don't think 13 or 14 of those is going to cut it.
$30 billion would probably be enough to build 7 nuclear plants. Assuming the cost would be similar to the cost of the Watts Bar 2 reactor Considering Watts Bar 2 will produce close to 3 times what Ivanpah can, it's going to be a little more than a couple billion.
that they charge me 500$ if I complain.
I would suggest that you make sure you get your money's worth.
I could have sworn that there was a non militarization of space treaty in place
That thing was drafted nearly 50 years ago, when just a handful of nations could manage to put a potato in orbit. That's such 20th century thinking. Welcome to the new age.
Anything that uses a distributor with points? Hell, anything that has a distributor has a very limited ECM at best, and certainly not one you can access wirelessly, or via a simple port of some kind.