I actually RTFA because I thought it was odd and I was curious on how Windows could block browsers from a technical standpoint.
The article leads to a Mozilla blog from which in turns links to another blog on from Microsoft which in no ways mention limiting browsers on Windows for Arm. So this quite strong claim has no actual source.
So not only was it obvious when you thought they said that newspapers polluted less than e-readers, but also now that you realize they pollute more than e-readers?
It couldn't have been very obvious to begin with then could it?
Sounds like someone with a calculator and a bunch of coins could save a lot of money in several small purchases. Beats using coupons.
Yes at a whopping maximum saving of NOK 0.49 per purchase (requiring you to buy fifty-one x.99 items) if you run from store to store you could make maybe six purchases an hour and get save a whopping of NOK 2.94 an hour or about USD 0.50.
But now you're comparing temperatures with two significant figures to temperatures with three significant figures (99.4 and 98.6 vs 37).
Why not use three significant figures for Celsius as well (since two significant figures for Fahrenheit would give the same issue you're complaining that Celsius has)?
Unless you habitually buy groceries for less than 16 cents the price is just as likely to be rounded up as down. So no, it doesn't add up to hundreds of dollars.
I'm pretty sure cost of living in Sweden is higher than in some parts of the states but I doubt it is that much higher.
You have to realize that if what you are saying is true, you are unique among mankind. Several controlled studies have been unable to find any difference between HFHP diets and other diets of the same caloric value. Occam's razor therefore strongly suggest that you either
1: have made some kind of mistake
2: suffer from an inability to make absorb fat/protein (e.g. colon damage)
If none of these would be true, volunteer for a scientific study your claims are extraordinary and understanding of how your body works would surely be a benefit to society.
There is no evidence whatsoever that a high fat/high protein diet of equal amount of calories as a high carbohydrate would lead to increased weight loss.
Most likely you are severely over estimating the energy amount of your high fat/high protein diet as high protein diets have been shown to lead to a voluntary decrease in caloric intake in controlled trials. Try carefully documenting your intake of calories over an extended period of time and you will probably see that you are actually eating much less than you think you are.
If you are seriously eating many more calories a day of fat and protein without significant weight gain, I suggest an urgent visit to a doctor. With such a significant difference in caloric intake without any effects you are very likely to be having severe colonial malfunction which could lead to internal bleedings, infections and death.
Twenty years ago hard drives were 100 MB. Now they are 2 TB, that's a x20000 increase roughly 2^14 increase. If the trend continues (I have no idea when we will hit a hard wall in storage space) it will probably fit into something the size of a thumb drive in 60 years.
Hell "disable control c#" gives you an answer in the first hit on google. The msdn page might be a little to technical for you so might I suggest starting with:
While I'm pretty certain that you are a troll that doesn't actually care about science that will contradict his world view. I'm going to post a citation for you anyway. I can't link to the article directly since it will be behind a paywall however it's not like you were going to read them anyway (and if you did you wouldn't understand it). You can find the abstract if you google for the article name for most of them (an abstract is a summary of what the article says) in case you're genuinely curious.
Pope, C Arden, Richard T Burnett, Michelle C Turner, Aaron J Cohen, Daniel Krewski, Michael Jerrett, Susan M Gapstur, and Michael J Thun. 2011. Lung Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality Associated with Ambient Air Pollution and Cigarette Smoke: Shape of the Exposure-Response Relationships. Environ Health Perspect. . (ISBN: 15529924)
I agree with you, battery technology is the problem holding back widespread adoption of electric vehicles. However, for some applications, mopeds, short-distance automobiles and ultra-light aircraft (the articles example) battery technology has already reached sufficient capacity (and those application will use predominantly battery technology once economies of scale kicks in, it has already happened with mopeds).
Though an order of magnitude more capacity is far more capacity than needed. Currently the most energy dense batteries are not used for economical reasons (recharge times also play a big part) and cars with the highest capacity batteries would have enough juice to replace modern heavier weight cars due to the much more efficient electrical engine (roughly 4 times as efficient) and more lightweight motor system. Given time the prices of these batteries should fall down to reasonable levels making their way into consumer vehicles.
An improvement by a factor two would make electrical vehicles capable of replacing trucks (the diesel-cycle is about third as efficient as electrical engines) and an improvement by a factor four enough for commercial airlines (jet engines are about half as efficient as electrical engines)
Now in my post I discussed fuel efficiency because these markets are very price sensitive to the cost of fuel. Airplanes in particular might even go so far as to switch to battery technology even when the system is a net loss (x kg of battery gives you shorter range than x kg of synthetic fuel) given that the route is possible with battery technology since synthetic fuel would cost about ten times as much as charging the batteries and a major cost per flight is fuel.
Synthesizing hydrocarbon fuels, though possible, is not only expensive. It is really expensive.
If you exclude other fossil fuels as a suitable candidate (while they can be synthesized into liquid hydrocarbons at an efficiency of about 0.5 they are also running out). The chain electricity->synthetic jet fuel->combustion engine is about one tenth as effective as electricity->battery->electric engine.
So while battery tech might not be quite there yet, even if wide scale synthesis of jet fuel was already existing, there would still be a drive force towards electric airplanes.
While what you're saying is true (that todays batteries are not energy dense enough). There are other advantages to a purely electric battery system making energy density not the only factor.
1. Higher efficiency of electric motors
2. Lower cost of fuel
3. Lower weight of electric motors
In fact, the article mentions that before it would be feasible to replace fuel with batteries for heavy aircraft battery capacity needs to increase by a factor of 4. When it does the switch-over would be fast due to the very high costs of flying air-planes.
In the meantime, we will have to settle for ultra-light airplanes using battery systems and watch as it becomes feasible for heavier and heavier aircrafts over time.
Yes but the knowledge about who you are is known by mybitcoin. Mybitcoin might destroy this information (but probably don't) but bitcoins are inherently not anonymous.
Also this send to random amounts to 20 different wallets adds no difficulty to tracing the origin of the coins.
And that is also a worthless statement. We know optimal tax income is between 0% and 100% tax rates, but still have no information on which side of this optimum we're at. Hell optimal tax rate could even be 99.99% as far as we know thus making the Laffer curve a useless financial concept.
Yes, that's where the crude simile comes from. You are docking your penis with another persons penis, just like you dock a spaceship with a space station.
This is equally retarded to someone complaining about using the terms pitcher or catcher when discussing baseball.
No, my argument is that since the very principle of property ownership is a state sponsored right, the difference between a government and no government is just a layer of abstraction.
Abolishment of the government in favor of voluntary contracts, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/agorism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_watchman_state or any other hardcore libertarian solution would just create a private corporation that takes on every and all aspects of the government (including forced "taxation" for all its members). Making it a de facto government.
By not doing that and actually leveraging the principles by which our governments (since we are probably not sharing our governments) work we can use a democratic institution where we actually have a say.
Wouldn't you prefer that to having to live on the whim of your local mafia^W feudal^W corporate overlord paying them taxes^W fees to live on their tithe^W property with their protection?
And if the answer to that is no, then I suppose that for you, there would be no difference between the government and the mafia.
Ah yes, if you are being a moral relativist there is no difference between a democratic government and the mafia. There is also no problem with killing and eating babies.
If you want a libertarian reasoning for why the government is legitimate replace government with corporation, taxes with income dependent rent and ownership with lease. The legitimacy of the government comes from the willingness of the people being governed trying to fit everything into a tiny model is just mental masturbation.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not true, Greenland was named Greenland by it's first settler Erik the Red hoping that a pleasant name would attract other settlers.
Uh no.
A brother and sister will on average will share 50% of their chromosomes. Cousins will never be guaranteed not to share any chromosomes.
Where did you get this idea from?
I actually RTFA because I thought it was odd and I was curious on how Windows could block browsers from a technical standpoint.
The article leads to a Mozilla blog from which in turns links to another blog on from Microsoft which in no ways mention limiting browsers on Windows for Arm. So this quite strong claim has no actual source.
So not only was it obvious when you thought they said that newspapers polluted less than e-readers, but also now that you realize they pollute more than e-readers?
It couldn't have been very obvious to begin with then could it?
Sounds like someone with a calculator and a bunch of coins could save a lot of money in several small purchases. Beats using coupons.
Yes at a whopping maximum saving of NOK 0.49 per purchase (requiring you to buy fifty-one x.99 items) if you run from store to store you could make maybe six purchases an hour and get save a whopping of NOK 2.94 an hour or about USD 0.50.
Something tells me this is not a big problem.
If your crude inbuilt sensor system can smell smoke from the engine, the check-engine light has probably been on for the last two years.
But now you're comparing temperatures with two significant figures to temperatures with three significant figures (99.4 and 98.6 vs 37).
Why not use three significant figures for Celsius as well (since two significant figures for Fahrenheit would give the same issue you're complaining that Celsius has)?
Unless you habitually buy groceries for less than 16 cents the price is just as likely to be rounded up as down. So no, it doesn't add up to hundreds of dollars.
I'm pretty sure cost of living in Sweden is higher than in some parts of the states but I doubt it is that much higher.
If you want to look at it as an opportunity cost you also have to add whatever opportunity you are missing, e.g. the wage for a full time job.
You have to realize that if what you are saying is true, you are unique among mankind. Several controlled studies have been unable to find any difference between HFHP diets and other diets of the same caloric value. Occam's razor therefore strongly suggest that you either
1: have made some kind of mistake
2: suffer from an inability to make absorb fat/protein (e.g. colon damage)
If none of these would be true, volunteer for a scientific study your claims are extraordinary and understanding of how your body works would surely be a benefit to society.
Most likely you are severely over estimating the energy amount of your high fat/high protein diet as high protein diets have been shown to lead to a voluntary decrease in caloric intake in controlled trials. Try carefully documenting your intake of calories over an extended period of time and you will probably see that you are actually eating much less than you think you are.
If you are seriously eating many more calories a day of fat and protein without significant weight gain, I suggest an urgent visit to a doctor. With such a significant difference in caloric intake without any effects you are very likely to be having severe colonial malfunction which could lead to internal bleedings, infections and death.
Uh didn't you read his post? 1 kg of lard contained 38 MJ of energy.
Twenty years ago hard drives were 100 MB. Now they are 2 TB, that's a x20000 increase roughly 2^14 increase. If the trend continues (I have no idea when we will hit a hard wall in storage space) it will probably fit into something the size of a thumb drive in 60 years.
control.Enabled = false;
control.Enabled = true;
That you couldn't find a simple property searching through msdn says a lot about you.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.forms.control.enabled.aspx
Hell "disable control c#" gives you an answer in the first hit on google. The msdn page might be a little to technical for you so might I suggest starting with:
http://www.homeandlearn.co.uk/csharp/csharp.html
While I'm pretty certain that you are a troll that doesn't actually care about science that will contradict his world view. I'm going to post a citation for you anyway. I can't link to the article directly since it will be behind a paywall however it's not like you were going to read them anyway (and if you did you wouldn't understand it). You can find the abstract if you google for the article name for most of them (an abstract is a summary of what the article says) in case you're genuinely curious.
Pope, C Arden, Richard T Burnett, Michelle C Turner, Aaron J Cohen, Daniel Krewski, Michael Jerrett, Susan M Gapstur, and Michael J Thun. 2011. Lung Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality Associated with Ambient Air Pollution and Cigarette Smoke: Shape of the Exposure-Response Relationships. Environ Health Perspect. . (ISBN: 15529924)
I agree with you, battery technology is the problem holding back widespread adoption of electric vehicles. However, for some applications, mopeds, short-distance automobiles and ultra-light aircraft (the articles example) battery technology has already reached sufficient capacity (and those application will use predominantly battery technology once economies of scale kicks in, it has already happened with mopeds).
Though an order of magnitude more capacity is far more capacity than needed. Currently the most energy dense batteries are not used for economical reasons (recharge times also play a big part) and cars with the highest capacity batteries would have enough juice to replace modern heavier weight cars due to the much more efficient electrical engine (roughly 4 times as efficient) and more lightweight motor system. Given time the prices of these batteries should fall down to reasonable levels making their way into consumer vehicles.
An improvement by a factor two would make electrical vehicles capable of replacing trucks (the diesel-cycle is about third as efficient as electrical engines) and an improvement by a factor four enough for commercial airlines (jet engines are about half as efficient as electrical engines)
Now in my post I discussed fuel efficiency because these markets are very price sensitive to the cost of fuel. Airplanes in particular might even go so far as to switch to battery technology even when the system is a net loss (x kg of battery gives you shorter range than x kg of synthetic fuel) given that the route is possible with battery technology since synthetic fuel would cost about ten times as much as charging the batteries and a major cost per flight is fuel.
Synthesizing hydrocarbon fuels, though possible, is not only expensive. It is really expensive.
If you exclude other fossil fuels as a suitable candidate (while they can be synthesized into liquid hydrocarbons at an efficiency of about 0.5 they are also running out). The chain electricity->synthetic jet fuel->combustion engine is about one tenth as effective as electricity->battery->electric engine.
So while battery tech might not be quite there yet, even if wide scale synthesis of jet fuel was already existing, there would still be a drive force towards electric airplanes.
While what you're saying is true (that todays batteries are not energy dense enough). There are other advantages to a purely electric battery system making energy density not the only factor.
1. Higher efficiency of electric motors
2. Lower cost of fuel
3. Lower weight of electric motors
In fact, the article mentions that before it would be feasible to replace fuel with batteries for heavy aircraft battery capacity needs to increase by a factor of 4. When it does the switch-over would be fast due to the very high costs of flying air-planes.
In the meantime, we will have to settle for ultra-light airplanes using battery systems and watch as it becomes feasible for heavier and heavier aircrafts over time.
Yes but the knowledge about who you are is known by mybitcoin. Mybitcoin might destroy this information (but probably don't) but bitcoins are inherently not anonymous. Also this send to random amounts to 20 different wallets adds no difficulty to tracing the origin of the coins.
And that is also a worthless statement. We know optimal tax income is between 0% and 100% tax rates, but still have no information on which side of this optimum we're at. Hell optimal tax rate could even be 99.99% as far as we know thus making the Laffer curve a useless financial concept.
Yes, that's where the crude simile comes from. You are docking your penis with another persons penis, just like you dock a spaceship with a space station.
This is equally retarded to someone complaining about using the terms pitcher or catcher when discussing baseball.
No it was not.
No, my argument is that since the very principle of property ownership is a state sponsored right, the difference between a government and no government is just a layer of abstraction.
Abolishment of the government in favor of voluntary contracts, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/agorism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_watchman_state or any other hardcore libertarian solution would just create a private corporation that takes on every and all aspects of the government (including forced "taxation" for all its members). Making it a de facto government.
By not doing that and actually leveraging the principles by which our governments (since we are probably not sharing our governments) work we can use a democratic institution where we actually have a say.
Wouldn't you prefer that to having to live on the whim of your local mafia^W feudal^W corporate overlord paying them taxes^W fees to live on their tithe^W property with their protection?
And if the answer to that is no, then I suppose that for you, there would be no difference between the government and the mafia.
Ah yes, if you are being a moral relativist there is no difference between a democratic government and the mafia. There is also no problem with killing and eating babies.
If you want a libertarian reasoning for why the government is legitimate replace government with corporation, taxes with income dependent rent and ownership with lease. The legitimacy of the government comes from the willingness of the people being governed trying to fit everything into a tiny model is just mental masturbation.
Hope that clears everything up for you. HTH HAND.
That's not the definition of terrorists that's a silly definition. The definition of terrorist is: using terror to accomplish ones political goals.