there is a growing group of people who simply cannot debate ideas
I wonder why you think this is new.
For context, these people generally do not make impacts on history, and are as such forgotten. Next generation won't know about most of our creeps, just like we don't know about most of the previous generation's creeps.
Similarly, people who think classic rock is better than today's music are forgetting everything but the really good stuff. When's the last time you listened to Mott the Hoople?
I think you might be missing his point. Jury selection is not a random sampling, nor is it supposed to be. That jury is supposed to be representative, and it was not.
I think what he meant was "what is the chance that two professional lawyers in a high profile case could go through voir dire and produce a jury this likely to cause later racially toned misapprehension?"
The prosecution should have ensured at least one man, at least one black person, and at least one person from that neighborhood on the jury. The defense should have had at least one man and at least one white person. As much as most Americans (I myself am one) will react poorly to that as if it's a form of discriminatory deck stacking, that's actually how the system is supposed to work; these are the people who, in the decision making process, are supposed to bring germane context to the proceeding. This is why jury nullification is ever a topic in America - in a "queer bashing" there should be a gay person there to explain to the others what it's like to be in the victim's shoes, etc.
Hydrogen is not a power source, it's an energy storage medium.
I have never liked this line of argument. After all, it's essentially true of gasoline, too; it's just that nature did the work. (And, in a lot of cases, the hydrogen is mined too; yay natural gas.) Both are chemicals which are oxidized to release heat energy. If the meaningful difference is whether nature or we did the work, then they're both storage media.
You go on to cite energy capacity differences; those are only meaningful in apples to apples comparisons.
Any line of reasoning that assumes hydrogen is a power source - rather than just a storage medium with very poor energy density - is unfortunately based on a flawed premise.
I don't think this is actually correct.
Where do you find the actual meaningful difference to be? It's apparently not in that they're both exothermic chemistry based on the same element.
Other power sources aren't even remotely similar - eg nuclear, wind.
Why are two things that are virtually identical being seen as distinct? Is the issue whether nature put the power in instead of us? Is the difference between a power source and an energy storage medium found solely in whether you primarily imagine our having to put energy in to make them viable?
Does gasoline become an energy storage medium, despite zero actual changes, when they start sourcing it from CO2 in the atmosphere?
What is the meaningful net effect of being in one category or the other? You seem to be suggesting that the problem isn't just the energy density (and that in itself is misleading in many ways,) but rather a more sophisticated issue of whether it's a source or a medium - and that that is what's undermining their thought.
You can get hydrogen out of the ground, and you can spend energy to manufacture gasoline from the air, both today. If they're both sourced that way, does that mean that the lines of reasoning you're whargarbling at without actually showing an error, merely stating that there is one, suddenly become more ratified?
What if it happened to cost as much energy to get gasoline out of the ground as is received by burning it? That isn't the case today, but someday it will be, unless we stop using it. On that day, will it have become an energy storage medium?
Is the line about whether we have to invest energy to derive energy from it? Because calling something an energy storage medium based on how much power it takes to acquire seems ridiculous to me, as much so as does classing one chemical exothermic with nuclear and wind but against another chemical exothermic based on production rate, but I can't see any definition that seperates the two that doesn't end up with that apparent nonsense result.
Why is it that so many hydrogen cars and busses are actually doing well, if it's such a flawed premise?
Why are you measuring energy per liter? Liter is a unit of volume. The amount of energy per liter here is a direct function of pressure. No mention is made of pressure in two of the three cases.
Cryogenically stored? Room temperature? The temperature of the hydrogen or gasoline has virtually nothing to do with the amount of energy released by burning it.
Where did you get these numbers? They don't agree with the ones on Wikipedia. Granted, I'm a Wikipedia skeptic; if you can cite a valid source I'm happy to take it, but I remain somewhat doubtful that you'll be able to.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
The proper measure here is not the energy density; that is and always has been asinine. The proper measure here is the specific energy - that is, by weight, not by volume. Hydrogen doesn't become a better fuel (oh sorry, "energy storage medium,") just because you put it under pressure. That's ridiculous. What matters is how much energy you can carry by weight, allowing for a practical limit on storage size. Hydrogen as a whole is not meaningfully better as
Then you should probably stop reading Apple sites for your Microsoft reviews, because you appear to not be interested in basic skepticism. There are, you know, actual numbers you can look up. It's not heavy, it's not power hungry, it's not a tablet, and it's not expensive by comparison with laptops (or even the new iPad.)
They've walked away from valid warrantees on me twice now, once when I had a tape recording of the employee on tech support instructing me to do something obviously wrong - on a high price machine still under base warranty which had also had an extended warranty purchased - and promising he'd make sure it was handled if it destroyed the machine as I said it was going to.
Why? Because their service company "Quixstar" or whatever decided they didn't feel like it, and Dell decided that meant they were off the hook.
I've talked various employers, many already heavy Dell customers, out of buying hundreds of servers since. I expect that walking away from that $2000 laptop has cost them something like $300,000 by now, and I'm not done.
The AAPS is a fringe group with less than 3000 doctors. It's like the American Osteopathy Association: its members are whack jobs, not real doctors.
Of course there's evidence that vaccination reduces transmission. Did OP even try to research that claim or its source before reprinting it? Did we think the pertussis wave in northern California came from some reason other than that non-vax transmit where vax don't?
So tired of this knee-jerk "well let's give time to the other side" bullcrap. No. Figure out if they're insane first.
A common choice is to choose units such that the maximum possible efficacy, 683 lm/W
It's way, way, way more complex than this... but that's green light... near-solar (or tungsten) identical bulbs to more limited 'whites'... truly wretched colour reproduction.
You seem confused by the phrase "maximum possible."
Send them an invoice with the maximum late payment penalty that the law AT BOTH SIDES allows, with a giant red statement that they're half a year late, and send it it to the person responsible, with a clear explanation of how much each increased payment delay costs.
If they delay you even one month beyond that, send a new invoice with the expected increase, and cc: it with a copy of all the others you've sent to the person responsible, their manager, accounts receivable, and the office of the president.
Isn't making the elevator go faster a job for an engineer?
It's a job for anyone who can do it safely.
For example, Southwest Airlines got a lot out of a psychologist in these regards, by reforming how they discussed lines, so that there was less jostling.
You don't shut jobs off from people who can do them for having the wrong title unless you're the Federal Government or a Silicon Valley VC.
Why would anyone buy a graphing calculator when a tablet is 1/3 the price for so much more hardware, and can have some equivalent calculator software installed for a dollar or two?
This is a market propped up by the expectations of out of date teachers. These devices have no natural sales anymore.
Because maturity is marked by speculation over the root of medical conditions which one supposes to affect a large group of people who one doesn't enjoy the comments of on an internet news site.
I bought one of their PCI drives - a RevoDrive X2. It was unbelievably fast.
To die. I barely used the thing, and it failed hard in about three months. Three months ago.
I'm still waiting on my replacement. I called them, and they authorized an RMA. Then I mailed my card in. Two months later, they called me (during Hurricane Sandy, despite that they had my address and knew perfectly well I couldn't answer questions,) to see if I still wanted my replacement (!) and would I give them their RMA number (!!) so that they could finally get around to it.
I told him my power was out and that I would love to have what they had promised me months ago, but I couldn't give him the RMA number at that time. He said he'd call back in a couple days. (Still not sure why he didn't just mail the drive.)
I haven't heard from him since, despite having left several messages with a suspiciously similar sounding "other" staff member who assures me that *this* time I'll get a call back.
It's a shame; the drive is wonderfully fast. However, it's unacceptably fragile, and I can't cope with their staff just never getting around to doing their jobs.
Strictly speaking, at minimum it would require two time fields and two boolean fields, with each boolean field specifying whether or not the interval is inclusive of each corresponding end point.
Yeah, or, maybe you could go look at how range fields work, and find out that that's part of the range field already.
It would also require a lot more than one simple constraint to get the desired behavior provided by the new datatype
No, actually, it wouldn't, pretend-o-saurus. It's called "an exclude constraint."
and the whole mess would need to be repeated for every single interval with a simple exclusivity constraint.
"You're wrong about this system I've never looked at because the first implementation that popped to mind wouldn't cover these obvious cases, and it's apparently beyond me that that might mean that I've guessed wrong how the feature works, instead of that you're an idiot."
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, in most of America it's quite illegal to follow people at night with a loaded firearm.
I wonder why you think this is new.
For context, these people generally do not make impacts on history, and are as such forgotten. Next generation won't know about most of our creeps, just like we don't know about most of the previous generation's creeps.
Similarly, people who think classic rock is better than today's music are forgetting everything but the really good stuff. When's the last time you listened to Mott the Hoople?
I think you might be missing his point. Jury selection is not a random sampling, nor is it supposed to be. That jury is supposed to be representative, and it was not.
I think what he meant was "what is the chance that two professional lawyers in a high profile case could go through voir dire and produce a jury this likely to cause later racially toned misapprehension?"
The prosecution should have ensured at least one man, at least one black person, and at least one person from that neighborhood on the jury. The defense should have had at least one man and at least one white person. As much as most Americans (I myself am one) will react poorly to that as if it's a form of discriminatory deck stacking, that's actually how the system is supposed to work; these are the people who, in the decision making process, are supposed to bring germane context to the proceeding. This is why jury nullification is ever a topic in America - in a "queer bashing" there should be a gay person there to explain to the others what it's like to be in the victim's shoes, etc.
I have never liked this line of argument. After all, it's essentially true of gasoline, too; it's just that nature did the work. (And, in a lot of cases, the hydrogen is mined too; yay natural gas.) Both are chemicals which are oxidized to release heat energy. If the meaningful difference is whether nature or we did the work, then they're both storage media.
You go on to cite energy capacity differences; those are only meaningful in apples to apples comparisons.
I don't think this is actually correct.
Where do you find the actual meaningful difference to be? It's apparently not in that they're both exothermic chemistry based on the same element.
Other power sources aren't even remotely similar - eg nuclear, wind.
Why are two things that are virtually identical being seen as distinct? Is the issue whether nature put the power in instead of us? Is the difference between a power source and an energy storage medium found solely in whether you primarily imagine our having to put energy in to make them viable?
Does gasoline become an energy storage medium, despite zero actual changes, when they start sourcing it from CO2 in the atmosphere?
What is the meaningful net effect of being in one category or the other? You seem to be suggesting that the problem isn't just the energy density (and that in itself is misleading in many ways,) but rather a more sophisticated issue of whether it's a source or a medium - and that that is what's undermining their thought.
You can get hydrogen out of the ground, and you can spend energy to manufacture gasoline from the air, both today. If they're both sourced that way, does that mean that the lines of reasoning you're whargarbling at without actually showing an error, merely stating that there is one, suddenly become more ratified?
What if it happened to cost as much energy to get gasoline out of the ground as is received by burning it? That isn't the case today, but someday it will be, unless we stop using it. On that day, will it have become an energy storage medium?
Is the line about whether we have to invest energy to derive energy from it? Because calling something an energy storage medium based on how much power it takes to acquire seems ridiculous to me, as much so as does classing one chemical exothermic with nuclear and wind but against another chemical exothermic based on production rate, but I can't see any definition that seperates the two that doesn't end up with that apparent nonsense result.
Why is it that so many hydrogen cars and busses are actually doing well, if it's such a flawed premise?
Why are you measuring energy per liter? Liter is a unit of volume. The amount of energy per liter here is a direct function of pressure. No mention is made of pressure in two of the three cases.
Cryogenically stored? Room temperature? The temperature of the hydrogen or gasoline has virtually nothing to do with the amount of energy released by burning it.
Where did you get these numbers? They don't agree with the ones on Wikipedia. Granted, I'm a Wikipedia skeptic; if you can cite a valid source I'm happy to take it, but I remain somewhat doubtful that you'll be able to.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
The proper measure here is not the energy density; that is and always has been asinine. The proper measure here is the specific energy - that is, by weight, not by volume. Hydrogen doesn't become a better fuel (oh sorry, "energy storage medium,") just because you put it under pressure. That's ridiculous. What matters is how much energy you can carry by weight, allowing for a practical limit on storage size. Hydrogen as a whole is not meaningfully better as
Most of America, it turns out.
Nearly half of America has less than $500 saved. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/22/americans-savings-500_n_2003285.html
The average American - including all those billionaires - has less than $6000. http://finance.zacks.com/much-money-average-american-family-savings-7304.html
There's no need for this level of rage. Take it down several notches, please; we can be civil in disagreement.
Yeah, the more expensive fingerprint readers have done this since the late 1980s. They can also tell if a retina was in a removed eye, et cetera.
Then you should probably stop reading Apple sites for your Microsoft reviews, because you appear to not be interested in basic skepticism. There are, you know, actual numbers you can look up. It's not heavy, it's not power hungry, it's not a tablet, and it's not expensive by comparison with laptops (or even the new iPad.)
So I mean. C'mon. Stop being a blind mouthpiece.
Oh, Dell? You're fucked.
They've walked away from valid warrantees on me twice now, once when I had a tape recording of the employee on tech support instructing me to do something obviously wrong - on a high price machine still under base warranty which had also had an extended warranty purchased - and promising he'd make sure it was handled if it destroyed the machine as I said it was going to.
Why? Because their service company "Quixstar" or whatever decided they didn't feel like it, and Dell decided that meant they were off the hook.
I've talked various employers, many already heavy Dell customers, out of buying hundreds of servers since. I expect that walking away from that $2000 laptop has cost them something like $300,000 by now, and I'm not done.
Hewlett Packard is just as bad.
Sorry, man. :(
Those who attempt cultural war with America quickly find themselves protesting from around a mouth full of double cheeseburger.
The AAPS is a fringe group with less than 3000 doctors. It's like the American Osteopathy Association: its members are whack jobs, not real doctors.
Of course there's evidence that vaccination reduces transmission. Did OP even try to research that claim or its source before reprinting it? Did we think the pertussis wave in northern California came from some reason other than that non-vax transmit where vax don't?
So tired of this knee-jerk "well let's give time to the other side" bullcrap. No. Figure out if they're insane first.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=vaccinated+less+likely+to+transmit
You seem confused by the phrase "maximum possible."
Send them an invoice with the maximum late payment penalty that the law AT BOTH SIDES allows, with a giant red statement that they're half a year late, and send it it to the person responsible, with a clear explanation of how much each increased payment delay costs.
If they delay you even one month beyond that, send a new invoice with the expected increase, and cc: it with a copy of all the others you've sent to the person responsible, their manager, accounts receivable, and the office of the president.
It's a job for anyone who can do it safely.
For example, Southwest Airlines got a lot out of a psychologist in these regards, by reforming how they discussed lines, so that there was less jostling.
You don't shut jobs off from people who can do them for having the wrong title unless you're the Federal Government or a Silicon Valley VC.
And here I would have thought it would be things where loss of life could follow failure.
It is not even slightly difficult to beat today's results with a simple annealer. I would *love* for someone to pay me to fix this.
Man, you didn't learn anything from CmdrTaco's pan of the iPod, did you?
There's more to life than picking a few random metrics and declaring fail.
Why would anyone buy a graphing calculator when a tablet is 1/3 the price for so much more hardware, and can have some equivalent calculator software installed for a dollar or two?
This is a market propped up by the expectations of out of date teachers. These devices have no natural sales anymore.
Reviewing the Surface RT? Point out how it isn't a laptop.
Reviewing the Surface Pro? Point out how it eats more power than tablets from years ago.
Why are we not shaming these article authors for their transparent bias?
Because maturity is marked by speculation over the root of medical conditions which one supposes to affect a large group of people who one doesn't enjoy the comments of on an internet news site.
Given the way their support staff puts in effort to make enemies, I doubt it'll work.
So obviously I don't know, since I picked wrong, yeah?
But my datacenter thinks Intel and Samsung are the way to go.
I bought one of their PCI drives - a RevoDrive X2. It was unbelievably fast.
To die. I barely used the thing, and it failed hard in about three months. Three months ago.
I'm still waiting on my replacement. I called them, and they authorized an RMA. Then I mailed my card in. Two months later, they called me (during Hurricane Sandy, despite that they had my address and knew perfectly well I couldn't answer questions,) to see if I still wanted my replacement (!) and would I give them their RMA number (!!) so that they could finally get around to it.
I told him my power was out and that I would love to have what they had promised me months ago, but I couldn't give him the RMA number at that time. He said he'd call back in a couple days. (Still not sure why he didn't just mail the drive.)
I haven't heard from him since, despite having left several messages with a suspiciously similar sounding "other" staff member who assures me that *this* time I'll get a call back.
It's a shame; the drive is wonderfully fast. However, it's unacceptably fragile, and I can't cope with their staff just never getting around to doing their jobs.
DragonBox is a fascinatingly friendly and effective way to teach symbolic arithmetic to children
Yeah, or, maybe you could go look at how range fields work, and find out that that's part of the range field already.
No, actually, it wouldn't, pretend-o-saurus. It's called "an exclude constraint."
"You're wrong about this system I've never looked at because the first implementation that popped to mind wouldn't cover these obvious cases, and it's apparently beyond me that that might mean that I've guessed wrong how the feature works, instead of that you're an idiot."
Fake mode off, please.
It would have taken you less time to google it than to throw that tantrum.