Will the government try to redeem these bitcoins? Wouldn't that be like saying that they accept that bitcoin is valid? (Of course they could be hypocrites and say that bitcoin is completely invalid and redeem them anyways.)
It would be neat if all the seized bitcoins could be identified and recorded as being worthless now.
If the CEOs were really interested in reporting on this they could make their own news with a sting operation. Plan to do a few "embarrassing" searches, document them ahead of time with a few high profile lawyers then do them. When the NSA acts, you reveal it all on your news programs.
Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull (SWATH) is a design that minimizes the effect of the waves. Most of the volume that supports the ship is below the level of the waves, making it very stable. The stability comes from the hull design, so it doesn't require any power and the stabilization isn't prone to failure like an active system.
Here's a short video of a SWATH ship in rough seas, with a regular hull ship for comparison. I'm pretty sure this is the one that I saw in a documentary about the design. They showed a glass of water sitting on a table in the SWATH ship, not spilling. I'm pretty sure that the glass would go flying in the other ship.
Airbags are passive: drivers don't have to do anything at all, they just work.
Automatically. Which is the point that was being made in the post that you originally replied to.
The question of active or passive is a separate issue and is complicated by the government's way of defining it. (Which seems backwards to me.) I would expect active/passive to refer to the device itself, rather than the user's interaction with it. The way the government defines it a self driving car is pretty much a passive device. A rock is an active device - it doesn't do anything unless you pick it up and throw it. Imagine a fully automatic predator drone that takes off, locates a target and attacks completely automatically. That would be labelled a passive device. I don't think those labellings match the usual interpretations of those words.
Red herring. Airbags are passive safety devices, not a device to automatically do something the driver had to do previously.
Sounds more like red herring argument to me. Deploying automatically, at high speed, at the instant an accident occurs is not at all passive. A seat belt is passive, once the driver attaches it. (At least the older style fixed ones were. Modern ones which lock only in response to a sufficient pull are questionably passive.) And as for not being something a driver had to do previously, they could have been set up as such, but I'd bet they would almost never have been used at the instant when needed since human reaction time is pretty poor. It would probably have been better for the human to try to avoid the accident in the first place.
Are you sure you replied to the correct post? I said absolutely nothing in favour of GMO plants and I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything that calls for the hostility in your post.
I was commenting on the difference between wild plants versus cultivated ones. That was the point of the GP of my post, but missed by the parent post which compared two different cultivated plants - the heirloom versus the mass produced one.
Show me a wild tomato that can grow without human cultivation and is as tasty as any modern tomato.
Heirloom tomatoes are modern, just not mass produced. They are still the result of people using selective breeding to improve on what they found in nature. Wild means what grows naturally, on it's own. Consider for example wild bananas from which people cultivated modern bananas.
You raise a valid point. My reply was about assessing their unconscious feelings. Maybe it would be better to say that they are unaware of their bias, or even worse are willing to lie about it.
I can really only answer for myself, which is what that statement was about. I found out that I had biases that I was not aware of. At least some associations gave me much more trouble than other ones did, and I don't have any other explanation for that. For some I didn't even need to see the reported times, I was aware of the difference while doing the test.
Maybe everyone else is aware of their biases and is simply not willing to admit them, but I doubt that. I suspect that for these biases:
reality > what people will admit > what people are aware of
With all due respect, you may still be missing the point about unconscious bias. You sound completely sincere and your attitude about professionalism is commendable and I completely agree with what you say about how a doctor should behave.
But what if you have a bias that you are not aware of? Have you ever taken an implicit association test? Are you sure that you could counter a bias that you are not even aware of?
As mentioned in another post, I have taken such tests and was surprised by some of the results. I found out that I had biases that I was not aware of. Even after learning about them I was not able to alter my results.
Consider the issue of using double blind studies when testing new drugs or therapies. Do you believe that double blind studies are necessary or are single blind studies ok as long as the person conducting the study is aware that they may be biased? Does that awareness allow them to be objective? How about "no blind" studies if the test subjects are properly informed about the placebo effect?
You're ignoring the part about the implicit association test. See my post above.
I agree that what someone admits to doesn't say anything about unconscious feelings. But an IAT can demonstrate feelings that you're not even aware of.
For those not familiar with implicit association tests, they are based on measuring your reaction times when matching certain types of data according to different specified criteria. For example a gender association test might measure time for matching gender with staying at home raising children versus working outside the home.
Having taken some of the tests I can say that the results can be quite surprising and point out biases that you are unaware of. I definitely found that some associations were much easier for me than others. (Happy to say that the gender example above was not a problem for me.)
But for the same cost as sending a human on a round trip to Mars you could build a fleet of rovers. Design and testing is a significant part of the cost so building extra rovers lowers the average cost dramatically.
A human can do 100x more in a day? For the same cost I'd bet you could send may more than 100 rovers and explore a much larger area of Mars.
I agree with you about the need for distributed power sources. But maybe there would still be situations where such a large amount of power would make sense if it was feasible and economical. Aluminum smelters already have their own GW power stations.
The financing issues for fission reactors may be related to the problems of long term storage of large amounts of waste. Unfortunately too many people may simply have the idea that "nuclear" means bad.
The real irony is how much money is spent on research into better ways to kill other people, and in actually doing so.
Tokamak fusion is not, and will never produce economical power, even if it works
(emphasis mine) Maybe he can explain it to you.
Maybe you'll claim that it's not a sound concept, but there are quite a few experimental reactors that exist now.
I like SABRE, I also like Tokamak. Will either one actually succeed? I don't know, but you seem to be making the same sort of complaints that you talk about.
You're right. Water has a high heat of vaporization. The amount of energy required to vaporize a given amount of water is close to 5 times the amount of energy that would be required to heat that same amount of water from 0 C to 100 C.
So think of it as being a bit like taking the amount of water in the condensate, heating that to 500 C* and adding it to your beer. (* heating to that temperature without vaporizing)
It does seem a bit funny to emphasize moving "individual atoms" when they are really molecules. I think manipulating a two element molecule is just as impressive, but why not just say that so as to be correct?
The first thing that struck me while watching the video is that many of the "atoms" appear to be a pair of dots, although one is much less prominent. I would have expected an atom to appear as a single dot. They say that you can only see the oxygen atoms, that the carbon atoms are "off screen". I wonder if the second dot is actually the carbon atom partially on screen.
1. You use toothpaste to remove bad stuff from your teeth, like plaque.
2. Plaque also occurs in your arteries where it can block them, becoming a danger to your health.
3. Something blocking the tubes creating a danger to someone's health.
4. Sim City!
I'm pretty sure western spy agencies have access to much better tools than Google Earth. You probably could claim that Google Earth is a produce of tools for western spy agencies. That doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with Google Earth.
... we will put a kind of information on our website that would take people of the world towards reality
Wouldn't it be much simpler to just point out what part of Google Earth does not represent reality?
Here's an interesting bit from the linked article:
Virtually everyone says that I should have plugged in the car overnight in Connecticut, particularly given the cold temperature.
Then that same paragraph finishes with:
... cannot realistically expect all 20,000 buyers a year (the Model S sales goal) to be electric-car acolytes who will plug in at every Walmart stop.
So the reviewer made an overnight stop at a Walmart in Connecticut? I'd say that if you have to exaggerate to that extreme to make you point, then you're pretty much admitting that you don't have point to make.
The reviewer's own argument (at least this part) makes me believe Tesla is right.
Slashdot Mirror
Will the government try to redeem these bitcoins? Wouldn't that be like saying that they accept that bitcoin is valid? (Of course they could be hypocrites and say that bitcoin is completely invalid and redeem them anyways.)
It would be neat if all the seized bitcoins could be identified and recorded as being worthless now.
If the CEOs were really interested in reporting on this they could make their own news with a sting operation. Plan to do a few "embarrassing" searches, document them ahead of time with a few high profile lawyers then do them. When the NSA acts, you reveal it all on your news programs.
Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull (SWATH) is a design that minimizes the effect of the waves. Most of the volume that supports the ship is below the level of the waves, making it very stable. The stability comes from the hull design, so it doesn't require any power and the stabilization isn't prone to failure like an active system.
Here's a short video of a SWATH ship in rough seas, with a regular hull ship for comparison. I'm pretty sure this is the one that I saw in a documentary about the design. They showed a glass of water sitting on a table in the SWATH ship, not spilling. I'm pretty sure that the glass would go flying in the other ship.
Automatically. Which is the point that was being made in the post that you originally replied to.
The question of active or passive is a separate issue and is complicated by the government's way of defining it. (Which seems backwards to me.) I would expect active/passive to refer to the device itself, rather than the user's interaction with it. The way the government defines it a self driving car is pretty much a passive device. A rock is an active device - it doesn't do anything unless you pick it up and throw it. Imagine a fully automatic predator drone that takes off, locates a target and attacks completely automatically. That would be labelled a passive device. I don't think those labellings match the usual interpretations of those words.
Sounds more like red herring argument to me. Deploying automatically, at high speed, at the instant an accident occurs is not at all passive. A seat belt is passive, once the driver attaches it. (At least the older style fixed ones were. Modern ones which lock only in response to a sufficient pull are questionably passive.) And as for not being something a driver had to do previously, they could have been set up as such, but I'd bet they would almost never have been used at the instant when needed since human reaction time is pretty poor. It would probably have been better for the human to try to avoid the accident in the first place.
Are you sure you replied to the correct post? I said absolutely nothing in favour of GMO plants and I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything that calls for the hostility in your post.
I was commenting on the difference between wild plants versus cultivated ones. That was the point of the GP of my post, but missed by the parent post which compared two different cultivated plants - the heirloom versus the mass produced one.
Heirloom tomatoes are modern, just not mass produced. They are still the result of people using selective breeding to improve on what they found in nature. Wild means what grows naturally, on it's own. Consider for example wild bananas from which people cultivated modern bananas.
Interestingly, at gas stations, "libre-service" means self service.
You raise a valid point. My reply was about assessing their unconscious feelings. Maybe it would be better to say that they are unaware of their bias, or even worse are willing to lie about it.
I can really only answer for myself, which is what that statement was about. I found out that I had biases that I was not aware of. At least some associations gave me much more trouble than other ones did, and I don't have any other explanation for that. For some I didn't even need to see the reported times, I was aware of the difference while doing the test.
Maybe everyone else is aware of their biases and is simply not willing to admit them, but I doubt that. I suspect that for these biases:
reality > what people will admit > what people are aware of
With all due respect, you may still be missing the point about unconscious bias. You sound completely sincere and your attitude about professionalism is commendable and I completely agree with what you say about how a doctor should behave.
But what if you have a bias that you are not aware of? Have you ever taken an implicit association test? Are you sure that you could counter a bias that you are not even aware of?
As mentioned in another post, I have taken such tests and was surprised by some of the results. I found out that I had biases that I was not aware of. Even after learning about them I was not able to alter my results.
Consider the issue of using double blind studies when testing new drugs or therapies. Do you believe that double blind studies are necessary or are single blind studies ok as long as the person conducting the study is aware that they may be biased? Does that awareness allow them to be objective? How about "no blind" studies if the test subjects are properly informed about the placebo effect?
You're ignoring the part about the implicit association test. See my post above.
I agree that what someone admits to doesn't say anything about unconscious feelings. But an IAT can demonstrate feelings that you're not even aware of.
For those not familiar with implicit association tests, they are based on measuring your reaction times when matching certain types of data according to different specified criteria. For example a gender association test might measure time for matching gender with staying at home raising children versus working outside the home.
Harvard has plenty of sample tests.
Having taken some of the tests I can say that the results can be quite surprising and point out biases that you are unaware of. I definitely found that some associations were much easier for me than others. (Happy to say that the gender example above was not a problem for me.)
But for the same cost as sending a human on a round trip to Mars you could build a fleet of rovers. Design and testing is a significant part of the cost so building extra rovers lowers the average cost dramatically.
A human can do 100x more in a day? For the same cost I'd bet you could send may more than 100 rovers and explore a much larger area of Mars.
No need for an angle grinder, a wrench will do just fine.
It would take a while to beat the effect of the 1998 ice storm. It downed more than 1000 pylons.
Thanks for the explanation.
I agree with you about the need for distributed power sources. But maybe there would still be situations where such a large amount of power would make sense if it was feasible and economical. Aluminum smelters already have their own GW power stations.
The financing issues for fission reactors may be related to the problems of long term storage of large amounts of waste. Unfortunately too many people may simply have the idea that "nuclear" means bad.
The real irony is how much money is spent on research into better ways to kill other people, and in actually doing so.
Maybe try talking to the guy who says the following
(emphasis mine) Maybe he can explain it to you.
Maybe you'll claim that it's not a sound concept, but there are quite a few experimental reactors that exist now.
I like SABRE, I also like Tokamak. Will either one actually succeed? I don't know, but you seem to be making the same sort of complaints that you talk about.
You're right. Water has a high heat of vaporization. The amount of energy required to vaporize a given amount of water is close to 5 times the amount of energy that would be required to heat that same amount of water from 0 C to 100 C.
So think of it as being a bit like taking the amount of water in the condensate, heating that to 500 C* and adding it to your beer. (* heating to that temperature without vaporizing)
It does seem a bit funny to emphasize moving "individual atoms" when they are really molecules. I think manipulating a two element molecule is just as impressive, but why not just say that so as to be correct?
The first thing that struck me while watching the video is that many of the "atoms" appear to be a pair of dots, although one is much less prominent. I would have expected an atom to appear as a single dot. They say that you can only see the oxygen atoms, that the carbon atoms are "off screen". I wonder if the second dot is actually the carbon atom partially on screen.
Just think about it, it makes sense.
1. You use toothpaste to remove bad stuff from your teeth, like plaque.
2. Plaque also occurs in your arteries where it can block them, becoming a danger to your health.
3. Something blocking the tubes creating a danger to someone's health.
4. Sim City!
I'm pretty sure western spy agencies have access to much better tools than Google Earth. You probably could claim that Google Earth is a produce of tools for western spy agencies. That doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with Google Earth.
Wouldn't it be much simpler to just point out what part of Google Earth does not represent reality?
It's Schrodinger's war: neither peace nor war has ended
They're just threatening to open the box and have a look.
From the summary: "Europe already has more than a dozen such plants". So maybe it is viable.
In any case your argument suggests that anything that isn't currently being done isn't viable. So any sort of progress is never possible.
"Are you heading to Kinky Sex Toys?"
Here's an interesting bit from the linked article:
Then that same paragraph finishes with:
So the reviewer made an overnight stop at a Walmart in Connecticut? I'd say that if you have to exaggerate to that extreme to make you point, then you're pretty much admitting that you don't have point to make.
The reviewer's own argument (at least this part) makes me believe Tesla is right.