The problem is we're already depleting our water tables in several highly important areas. The US bread basket, central China, large portions of Africa all could face severe, water shortages in the near future, and with no water to irrigate even a minor drought can turn catastrophic.
I'm by no means a pilot, but I seem to remember they have a word or phrase for this. Constantly scanning the instruments, verifying they are what they are supposed to be but already moving on to the next one before the current one has even registered.
Someone breaks into your place of business, what are your rights? You can bar the door, obviously. You physically intimidate them into leaving sure. You can shoot them... well... if you're in danger and can't get away (or even if you can in some places)... and you have the right to own the gun you're shooting... and well, you better be able to explain yourself.
What you can't do is follow them home and smash their stuff. And you really, really can't start an international incident, that kind of thing is looked down upon.
Let me help, what he said: "Nuclear fusion in stars actually has a very LOW power density." And that's extremely true. The sun gives off about the same energy per cubic meter as a compost pile, it's just that the sun is big, really big. The person you are replying to was pointing out that getting useful energy out of fusion requires energies that are actually much higher than those present in the sun. You are confusing power with energy. Yes, the sun has a crap ton of energy... but it releases that energy very, very slowly (i.e. over the course of several billion years).
along with natural gas which now causes global warming. but it didn't 13 years ago.
If you absolutely had to be shot, would you rather be shot in the shoulder with a.45 or a.22? Ok, here we go! What do you mean you don't wanna be shot, you just agreed the.22 was the better option!
Money. Well, to be fair, the real answer is externalities and how poorly our system copes with them. In fact, you can say that about almost every major problem we face today: if people would look at the externalities and factor their costs and benefits into the equations the world would be a much better place. Until you factor in the costs associated with pollution from fossil fuels, nuclear won't be cost effective. In fact, that's what cap and trade is supposed to do: put a price tag on the damage pollution does. But no one wants that, or at least, no one is willing to pay for it.
You want to evolve society so that 50% of the population can pick up and move? So that we not only grown enough food to feed everyone but also store enough to give us a couple years to switch plots and establish new farm land? So that we can all move toward the poles when the average temperatures at the equator are 2-5 degrees C more than they are today? Or will you just install 5 ton central AC in everyone's home, including all the people living on $2 a day? Or did you just mean the rich people? Or do you honestly think we can uplift the 9 billion people on the world so that everyone can afford the ludicrously lavish lifestyle that we all consider normal?
He was doing something illegal, which isn't the same thing as wrong. No amount of moral relativism will ever convince me that the actions of 2 consenting adults is "wrong" in an ethical sense.
Once one volume had been opened and the files discovered he could not long self incriminate himself because he was guilty.
First and foremost, he is not guilty until he has been found by a court of law to be guilty. Secondly, simply being guilty of one crime does not mean the police get to search anything and everything they want. Thirdly, the police having hard evidence of your alleged guilt does not mean your fifth amendment rights evaporate.
They, or their ancestors, chose a different value system from you, nothing more or less, and I personally can understand their decision (even if it's not the one I would take). Ignore the fact that it's rooted in religion and look at the actual motivation for the things Amish do. Their proscriptions aren't based on scripture, at least not directly, they are based on keeping the family as strong as possible, keeping friends and relatives close, not relying on others, not being lazy or vain.
I should have been more clear, I said "the problem with this is" when I should have said "the technical problem". The legal, constitutional, human rights, and corruption problems are huge and cannot be ignored. I was merely stating that even ignoring all the implications, the system simply cannot work with any realistically useful numbers.
If I had to guess, personally, based on what I've heard and what I've seen. I'd say that they are building a network of contacts. They want to be able to see who talks to who, how often, at what times of day and night, and over what mediums. When they identify a suspect, they want to be able to quickly identify who else they should be looking into. To a lesser extent, they want to look for unusual patterns that could indicate something nefarious is going on, most people's contacts to not follow a rigid hierarchy. Most people's contacts aren't segregated into groups that have little to no contact between them.
The problem with that kind of analysis is that it will never be accurate enough to be useful, simply because of the numbers involved. A.01% false positive rate will completely swamp out a 90% true positive rate, when you are looking at hundreds of millions of people looking for just dozens of potential terrorists.
It's not about the courts, or the Amish. It's about companies not living up to their end of the agreement because they know the Amish won't come after them in court. It's about moral decay and the sociopathy of large corporations.
Not at all, if they use it it is necessary to the survival of their family's way of life, which is the primary reason that modern machinery is allowed. FDA and USDA guidelines don't allow for hand milking and require refrigeration for obvious reasons. Families that had been dairy farmers for generations were left with a choice, abandon their family's traditions or modernize to the minimum extent necessary to continue.
But even if they chose to bring the necessary equipment they reduce the intrusion to the maximum extent possible; they don't wire up the home as well, most of them don't even wire up lights in the barn. They don't wire their equipment to the mains because that would make them reliant on the outside world. Using a generator and fuel moves that reliance one tiny step further away; a generator can be repaired, fuel can, in theory, be found from any number of sources, there are no power lines installed by 3rd parties and a tree coming down 50 miles away won't knock out their power.
Although the Amish are not idiots, they have decided to live their lives without many modern conveniences.
Not quite, they've decided to live their lives without being beholden to and dependent on outsiders. Why don't they wire up their houses to electricity? Because their way of life would rapidly change to make them dependent on it. Same reason they don't use cars or tractors. I don't know why, but I find this to be an important distinction... maybe it's because people think that the Amish just made this weird choice for no justification when there is a more fundamental, and more understandable reason for their denial of modern conveniences.
I fucking hate this attitude. Blame the victim it's their fault! Yes, the affected people could fight back, but the story isn't about that as much as it is that these are large corporations purposefully taking advantage of their knowledge that the Amish won't fight back. If you go up to a pacifist and punch him in the face it's funny because he won't punch back right!? Right?
How big is the Photoshop download these days? And how small could they make it to download the core functionality that you use and download other stuff as needed? Not possible today to do Photoshop as a service, but what about when a 1Gbps link is standard and bandwidth costs on their end are a fraction what they are today?
You're used to the kind of Easter/Christmas (or at most Sunday) Christians that you meet every day on the street. The Amish aren't like that. They live every day of their lives neck deep in their interpretation of the bible. They pray a dozen times a day, not because it's mandated, but just because that's what they do. They do not go out looking for loopholes to that interpretation, even something as simple as allowing bright colors on their children's clothes takes endless meetings and councils.
You have to say this, at least they are consistent in their belief system, unlike most self proclaimed religious people. And generally speaking they are happy with their lot and comfortable in their lives, but sometimes it leaves them wide open for exploitation.
The solution to X people dying is not "do anything and everything to prevent it". Lowering the freeway speed to 45mph would eliminate some percentage of freeway deaths too. So would mandating business hours on an individual basis (to stagger working hours and eliminate rush hour). So would 5 point harnesses instead of 3 point seat belts. Why don't we do these things? Because they're invasive, annoying, and people don't like them. Because they cause other problems than just the obvious. And note, none of those things open the door to wide scale government monitoring like the system described in the article would.
Arguing that it doesn't apply would require one to have an alternate explanation for why and how memory and learning occur after the brain supposedly doesn't create new neurons.
I was under the impression that the standard explanation was that learning and memory were based on connections, not generation of new cells.
The problem is, when someone asks "What time is it in Cairo?" what they really mean is "is this place of business open in Cairo?" or "is this person awake in Cairo?". Putting everyone on a single time would make those kinds of questions more difficult to answer, not less.
From what I have read, their brains are wiring themselves based off of responses to their actions.
So is yours. This idea that infants are unique in the way they learn doesn't do the adult brain justice. My daughter has been teaching herself English via total immersion for 2 years (with of course, help from mom and dad and everyone else around her) I could match her progress in some other language in a matter of weeks (thanks largely to the enormously complex framework that my mind already contains).
The point is, you have a lot of tools at your disposal that the infant doesn't. You know what your goal is, you want to the quad copter to move up, for example. You will get excited and gratified when it happens, which helps the feedback look get established. Infants, on the other hand, spend lots of time just doing stuff, and watching what happens. They are building relationships between thought and action but they are doing it in a very haphazard way.
You've never been introduced to a new feature and thought it was awesome only to realize 6 months later that you never use it, and the few times you did use it it wasn't as nice as you imagined? Even if it works exactly like you expected, sometimes the imagination runs a lot better than the actual use cases do.
The shortest answer, the key insight is that the wheels drive the propeller.
Therefore, it isn't the wind speed relative to the vehicle that matters. It's the wind speed relative to the ground. Energy is extracted from the vehicles ground speed, producing a backward force X. That energy is transferred to the surrounding air producing a forward force Y. Since the surrounding air is moving more slowly than the ground relative to the vehicle, so long as your propeller is sufficiently efficient, Y will be larger than X.
To answer your second question, in that situation the air and the ground will be moving at the same speed. No matter how efficient your system is, there's no speed differential to extract energy from.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is we're already depleting our water tables in several highly important areas. The US bread basket, central China, large portions of Africa all could face severe, water shortages in the near future, and with no water to irrigate even a minor drought can turn catastrophic.
I'm by no means a pilot, but I seem to remember they have a word or phrase for this. Constantly scanning the instruments, verifying they are what they are supposed to be but already moving on to the next one before the current one has even registered.
Someone breaks into your place of business, what are your rights? You can bar the door, obviously. You physically intimidate them into leaving sure. You can shoot them... well... if you're in danger and can't get away (or even if you can in some places)... and you have the right to own the gun you're shooting... and well, you better be able to explain yourself.
What you can't do is follow them home and smash their stuff. And you really, really can't start an international incident, that kind of thing is looked down upon.
Let me help, what he said: "Nuclear fusion in stars actually has a very LOW power density." And that's extremely true. The sun gives off about the same energy per cubic meter as a compost pile, it's just that the sun is big, really big. The person you are replying to was pointing out that getting useful energy out of fusion requires energies that are actually much higher than those present in the sun. You are confusing power with energy. Yes, the sun has a crap ton of energy... but it releases that energy very, very slowly (i.e. over the course of several billion years).
along with natural gas which now causes global warming. but it didn't 13 years ago.
If you absolutely had to be shot, would you rather be shot in the shoulder with a .45 or a .22? Ok, here we go! What do you mean you don't wanna be shot, you just agreed the .22 was the better option!
Money. Well, to be fair, the real answer is externalities and how poorly our system copes with them. In fact, you can say that about almost every major problem we face today: if people would look at the externalities and factor their costs and benefits into the equations the world would be a much better place. Until you factor in the costs associated with pollution from fossil fuels, nuclear won't be cost effective. In fact, that's what cap and trade is supposed to do: put a price tag on the damage pollution does. But no one wants that, or at least, no one is willing to pay for it.
You want to evolve society so that 50% of the population can pick up and move? So that we not only grown enough food to feed everyone but also store enough to give us a couple years to switch plots and establish new farm land? So that we can all move toward the poles when the average temperatures at the equator are 2-5 degrees C more than they are today? Or will you just install 5 ton central AC in everyone's home, including all the people living on $2 a day? Or did you just mean the rich people? Or do you honestly think we can uplift the 9 billion people on the world so that everyone can afford the ludicrously lavish lifestyle that we all consider normal?
They can, and have in the past, packaged OS updates on game disks. Just saying, it's not as easy to avoid updates as you might imagine.
He was doing something illegal, which isn't the same thing as wrong. No amount of moral relativism will ever convince me that the actions of 2 consenting adults is "wrong" in an ethical sense.
Once one volume had been opened and the files discovered he could not long self incriminate himself because he was guilty.
First and foremost, he is not guilty until he has been found by a court of law to be guilty. Secondly, simply being guilty of one crime does not mean the police get to search anything and everything they want. Thirdly, the police having hard evidence of your alleged guilt does not mean your fifth amendment rights evaporate.
They, or their ancestors, chose a different value system from you, nothing more or less, and I personally can understand their decision (even if it's not the one I would take). Ignore the fact that it's rooted in religion and look at the actual motivation for the things Amish do. Their proscriptions aren't based on scripture, at least not directly, they are based on keeping the family as strong as possible, keeping friends and relatives close, not relying on others, not being lazy or vain.
I should have been more clear, I said "the problem with this is" when I should have said "the technical problem". The legal, constitutional, human rights, and corruption problems are huge and cannot be ignored. I was merely stating that even ignoring all the implications, the system simply cannot work with any realistically useful numbers.
If I had to guess, personally, based on what I've heard and what I've seen. I'd say that they are building a network of contacts. They want to be able to see who talks to who, how often, at what times of day and night, and over what mediums. When they identify a suspect, they want to be able to quickly identify who else they should be looking into. To a lesser extent, they want to look for unusual patterns that could indicate something nefarious is going on, most people's contacts to not follow a rigid hierarchy. Most people's contacts aren't segregated into groups that have little to no contact between them.
The problem with that kind of analysis is that it will never be accurate enough to be useful, simply because of the numbers involved. A .01% false positive rate will completely swamp out a 90% true positive rate, when you are looking at hundreds of millions of people looking for just dozens of potential terrorists.
It's not about the courts, or the Amish. It's about companies not living up to their end of the agreement because they know the Amish won't come after them in court. It's about moral decay and the sociopathy of large corporations.
Not at all, if they use it it is necessary to the survival of their family's way of life, which is the primary reason that modern machinery is allowed. FDA and USDA guidelines don't allow for hand milking and require refrigeration for obvious reasons. Families that had been dairy farmers for generations were left with a choice, abandon their family's traditions or modernize to the minimum extent necessary to continue.
But even if they chose to bring the necessary equipment they reduce the intrusion to the maximum extent possible; they don't wire up the home as well, most of them don't even wire up lights in the barn. They don't wire their equipment to the mains because that would make them reliant on the outside world. Using a generator and fuel moves that reliance one tiny step further away; a generator can be repaired, fuel can, in theory, be found from any number of sources, there are no power lines installed by 3rd parties and a tree coming down 50 miles away won't knock out their power.
Although the Amish are not idiots, they have decided to live their lives without many modern conveniences.
Not quite, they've decided to live their lives without being beholden to and dependent on outsiders. Why don't they wire up their houses to electricity? Because their way of life would rapidly change to make them dependent on it. Same reason they don't use cars or tractors. I don't know why, but I find this to be an important distinction... maybe it's because people think that the Amish just made this weird choice for no justification when there is a more fundamental, and more understandable reason for their denial of modern conveniences.
I fucking hate this attitude. Blame the victim it's their fault! Yes, the affected people could fight back, but the story isn't about that as much as it is that these are large corporations purposefully taking advantage of their knowledge that the Amish won't fight back. If you go up to a pacifist and punch him in the face it's funny because he won't punch back right!? Right?
How big is the Photoshop download these days? And how small could they make it to download the core functionality that you use and download other stuff as needed? Not possible today to do Photoshop as a service, but what about when a 1Gbps link is standard and bandwidth costs on their end are a fraction what they are today?
You're used to the kind of Easter/Christmas (or at most Sunday) Christians that you meet every day on the street. The Amish aren't like that. They live every day of their lives neck deep in their interpretation of the bible. They pray a dozen times a day, not because it's mandated, but just because that's what they do. They do not go out looking for loopholes to that interpretation, even something as simple as allowing bright colors on their children's clothes takes endless meetings and councils.
You have to say this, at least they are consistent in their belief system, unlike most self proclaimed religious people. And generally speaking they are happy with their lot and comfortable in their lives, but sometimes it leaves them wide open for exploitation.
The solution to X people dying is not "do anything and everything to prevent it". Lowering the freeway speed to 45mph would eliminate some percentage of freeway deaths too. So would mandating business hours on an individual basis (to stagger working hours and eliminate rush hour). So would 5 point harnesses instead of 3 point seat belts. Why don't we do these things? Because they're invasive, annoying, and people don't like them. Because they cause other problems than just the obvious. And note, none of those things open the door to wide scale government monitoring like the system described in the article would.
Arguing that it doesn't apply would require one to have an alternate explanation for why and how memory and learning occur after the brain supposedly doesn't create new neurons.
I was under the impression that the standard explanation was that learning and memory were based on connections, not generation of new cells.
The problem is, when someone asks "What time is it in Cairo?" what they really mean is "is this place of business open in Cairo?" or "is this person awake in Cairo?". Putting everyone on a single time would make those kinds of questions more difficult to answer, not less.
From what I have read, their brains are wiring themselves based off of responses to their actions.
So is yours. This idea that infants are unique in the way they learn doesn't do the adult brain justice. My daughter has been teaching herself English via total immersion for 2 years (with of course, help from mom and dad and everyone else around her) I could match her progress in some other language in a matter of weeks (thanks largely to the enormously complex framework that my mind already contains).
The point is, you have a lot of tools at your disposal that the infant doesn't. You know what your goal is, you want to the quad copter to move up, for example. You will get excited and gratified when it happens, which helps the feedback look get established. Infants, on the other hand, spend lots of time just doing stuff, and watching what happens. They are building relationships between thought and action but they are doing it in a very haphazard way.
You've never been introduced to a new feature and thought it was awesome only to realize 6 months later that you never use it, and the few times you did use it it wasn't as nice as you imagined? Even if it works exactly like you expected, sometimes the imagination runs a lot better than the actual use cases do.
The shortest answer, the key insight is that the wheels drive the propeller.
Therefore, it isn't the wind speed relative to the vehicle that matters. It's the wind speed relative to the ground. Energy is extracted from the vehicles ground speed, producing a backward force X. That energy is transferred to the surrounding air producing a forward force Y. Since the surrounding air is moving more slowly than the ground relative to the vehicle, so long as your propeller is sufficiently efficient, Y will be larger than X.
To answer your second question, in that situation the air and the ground will be moving at the same speed. No matter how efficient your system is, there's no speed differential to extract energy from.