Depends on the genes. Coloration can and does change much faster than that (usually there's a lot of color variant genes already floating around). But for something like this I'd expect the plant to take a long time to drop it even if it doesn't help against the modern day deer in New Zealand (which I suspect it probably does).
The wacky leaves do have a cost though. 1) they're inferior at photosynthesis 2) the plants need to put energy into changing the leaves they've already grown (not sure how much work this is, it might be trivial, it might be major)
I'm not convinced that cost isn't out weighed by protection from deer though.
The additional growth required to change the leaves like that is going to be non-zero cost. Appendixes are more or less free (they're tiny). I also suspect that these trees would grow faster if they had big bright green leaves as saplings. So I figure there's one of two reasons they haven't evolved away: 1) it helps against deer too, there was only about 300 years without deer or moa, 2) they haven't gotten a random gene mutation to drop it in the last 500 years (500 years is pretty damn short)
New Zealandâ(TM)s land biota evolved in the near-absence of mammals. MÄori introduced one new mammalian herbivore (the rat, kiore) and Europeans introduced over 25 more species, including three more rodent species, brushtail possums, and various species of deer. Before mammals were introduced, forests had been grazed for millennia by flightless birds. These became extinct within 150 years of MÄori settlement. [http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/research_details.asp?Research_Content_ID=55]
The plants kept their evolutionary advantages against herbivores because there are still herbivores on New Zealand... Yes?
Radioactive stuff stopped being cool for super heroes when we learned that the only thing radiation did was give cancer. One day we'll stop the biochemical origin story too (I think).
I find that my happiness, productivity, and quality of sleep are all on feedback loops with each other.
If I try to push myself 'too hard' I burn out and reduce my output. Once my output/focus starts to suffer I find that what was fine last week is now 'too hard'. I also start losing sleep because I'm not as happy, making me late of the office making me stay later to get the same hours and lowering the 'too hard' threshold again. At my worst in this loops I can put myself down to 3 grace C productive hours a day. At my best I can put in 8 grade A productive hours a day (so about 12 times more output)
The only thing I've found that pulls me out of these loops so far is time off. If I take time off before I start spiraling down it takes me less time off to keep myself in a healthy mental state than if I wait til I'm sitting at my desk for an hour (with my browser closed) and still only putting out 10 minutes of work. I also find that a walk at 3 PM helps keep me focused and productive (not sure if that's an option at your office).
You might also consider looking for a different job (if you can't find a solution at your current workplace). Is it a product of coding that you hate? The project you're working on? Corporate culture? Personally, I just hate wiring buttons together and that's a lot of what I do.
I always find my highest productivity times are when I can type to the tempo of fast techno songs. I'm not sure that the music helps, it might be that I can only really get into fast techno when I'm highly productive.
You don't want the poor and lazy to get the money you worked for... Jesus says you're screwed. This isn't about Democrats and Republicans, this is about you violating your theology hardcore.
And seriously, you want the president to cut the budget by 250K by forgoing his salary? If you actually were interested in a meaningful budget cut, why not suggest something that at least registers at a hundredth of a percent of the budget? (following the Bush exclusion of the wars as part of the budget,.01% of the federal budget in 2008 was about 300 million, it's a bit more if you count the wars in the main budget)
Even if this is a parable for the smaller gate, you'd be walking a close line. He says "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." Boom, no parables, just straight up. He's saying that if you're rich now you're going to have a harder time getting into heaven. Why? Because you could be giving away your wealth to those who need it. You're being selfish. This is straight up with no parables.
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Forgiveness and repentance are huge parts of Christianity. If you accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior, then he will save you. But if you wait until you die and try to do it then, it will be too late. Perhaps the same might be true of wealth, if you wait til you die to give away everything you own, it might be too late. Why risk it?
Interestingly, this seems to be a contended point. I have been unable to find any clear reference to the eye of the needle existing as a gate past people arguing about it or repeating what you've just said. I've also seen some potential translation errors that assert that the word is not even camel, but instead a knot or rope.
Certainly, many of Christ's teachings were on the side of communism. Heck, even the meaning you are suggesting still says to me "Don't bother pursuing wealth because it's meaningless in the kingdom of God." (and that's the most wealth friendly interpretation possible)
I'm baffled by the dichotomy, that you seem to be both Christian and look down on the poor. Jesus did say "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (depending on which translation you use).
No, and I realize england is not ideal for solar panels, but at least a solar panel would be a net gain once deployed, while these plants are a net loss.
I would count on this damaging gameplay experience. Gran Turisimo 3 includes an auto-pilot mode. When you first start playing the game it's not infeasible that the auto-pilot is a better race car driver than you... So you might end up using it a bit and before you know it, you can only use the auto-pilot because you're not good enough to compete on your own at the current difficulty.
Personally, when this happened to me I went back and restarted without using B-Spec mode on a race I hadn't already won at least once (using B-spec to farm for credits to buy competitive cars for other races was a different story). I enjoyed the gameplay experience MUCH more the second time.
Where do you think the energy that the plate captures comes from? It comes from the kinetic energy of the car (unless you have another suggested source). Kinetic energy of a car is almost always it's forward momentum and nothing else, thus you ARE slowing the car down. To compensate the driver will apply the gas and burn more carbon.
It's unlikely that they would cool it down that much. Your engine radiates heat continually while it's running so if you can recapture waste heat that is desirable. Increasing energy efficiency through recapturing waste energy is not free energy though.
Free energy, what they're suggesting here, is impossible. If you had plates to steal kinetic energy from the cars on the downhill paths though, that would be a valid use to recapture waste (although making a flat parking lot would be better yet for efficiency)
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on the genes. Coloration can and does change much faster than that (usually there's a lot of color variant genes already floating around). But for something like this I'd expect the plant to take a long time to drop it even if it doesn't help against the modern day deer in New Zealand (which I suspect it probably does).
The wacky leaves do have a cost though. 1) they're inferior at photosynthesis 2) the plants need to put energy into changing the leaves they've already grown (not sure how much work this is, it might be trivial, it might be major)
I'm not convinced that cost isn't out weighed by protection from deer though.
The additional growth required to change the leaves like that is going to be non-zero cost. Appendixes are more or less free (they're tiny). I also suspect that these trees would grow faster if they had big bright green leaves as saplings. So I figure there's one of two reasons they haven't evolved away: 1) it helps against deer too, there was only about 300 years without deer or moa, 2) they haven't gotten a random gene mutation to drop it in the last 500 years (500 years is pretty damn short)
New Zealandâ(TM)s land biota evolved in the near-absence of mammals. MÄori introduced one new mammalian herbivore (the rat, kiore) and Europeans introduced over 25 more species, including three more rodent species, brushtail possums, and various species of deer. Before mammals were introduced, forests had been grazed for millennia by flightless birds. These became extinct within 150 years of MÄori settlement. [http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/research_details.asp?Research_Content_ID=55]
The plants kept their evolutionary advantages against herbivores because there are still herbivores on New Zealand... Yes?
Radioactive stuff stopped being cool for super heroes when we learned that the only thing radiation did was give cancer. One day we'll stop the biochemical origin story too (I think).
Duck is already so boring, pigeon would probably have to make your next meal after eating it bland as well.
And does he always talk in third person when he misses his meds?
Nope, they only make you crap the rock when you want them to stop writing your password down on a sticky note.
I personally find that a quick checking of the news is good for a mini break between tasks and can help keep me feeling focused in the long term.
I find that my happiness, productivity, and quality of sleep are all on feedback loops with each other.
If I try to push myself 'too hard' I burn out and reduce my output. Once my output/focus starts to suffer I find that what was fine last week is now 'too hard'. I also start losing sleep because I'm not as happy, making me late of the office making me stay later to get the same hours and lowering the 'too hard' threshold again. At my worst in this loops I can put myself down to 3 grace C productive hours a day. At my best I can put in 8 grade A productive hours a day (so about 12 times more output)
The only thing I've found that pulls me out of these loops so far is time off. If I take time off before I start spiraling down it takes me less time off to keep myself in a healthy mental state than if I wait til I'm sitting at my desk for an hour (with my browser closed) and still only putting out 10 minutes of work. I also find that a walk at 3 PM helps keep me focused and productive (not sure if that's an option at your office).
You might also consider looking for a different job (if you can't find a solution at your current workplace). Is it a product of coding that you hate? The project you're working on? Corporate culture? Personally, I just hate wiring buttons together and that's a lot of what I do.
I always find my highest productivity times are when I can type to the tempo of fast techno songs. I'm not sure that the music helps, it might be that I can only really get into fast techno when I'm highly productive.
Don't use a bank that has Safe2Login then, then the bank teller can write down your password on a sticky note and make you crap a rock...
Seconded
That's your ideology and I understand it's yours. I just happen to feel it conflicts with the teachings of Jesus Christ.
You don't want the poor and lazy to get the money you worked for... Jesus says you're screwed. This isn't about Democrats and Republicans, this is about you violating your theology hardcore.
And seriously, you want the president to cut the budget by 250K by forgoing his salary? If you actually were interested in a meaningful budget cut, why not suggest something that at least registers at a hundredth of a percent of the budget? (following the Bush exclusion of the wars as part of the budget, .01% of the federal budget in 2008 was about 300 million, it's a bit more if you count the wars in the main budget)
Even if this is a parable for the smaller gate, you'd be walking a close line. He says "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." Boom, no parables, just straight up. He's saying that if you're rich now you're going to have a harder time getting into heaven. Why? Because you could be giving away your wealth to those who need it. You're being selfish. This is straight up with no parables.
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Forgiveness and repentance are huge parts of Christianity. If you accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior, then he will save you. But if you wait until you die and try to do it then, it will be too late. Perhaps the same might be true of wealth, if you wait til you die to give away everything you own, it might be too late. Why risk it?
Interestingly, this seems to be a contended point. I have been unable to find any clear reference to the eye of the needle existing as a gate past people arguing about it or repeating what you've just said. I've also seen some potential translation errors that assert that the word is not even camel, but instead a knot or rope.
Certainly, many of Christ's teachings were on the side of communism. Heck, even the meaning you are suggesting still says to me "Don't bother pursuing wealth because it's meaningless in the kingdom of God." (and that's the most wealth friendly interpretation possible)
I'm baffled by the dichotomy, that you seem to be both Christian and look down on the poor. Jesus did say "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (depending on which translation you use).
Touché. Still, there might be a significant difference between auto-pilot and god modes. Maybe not.
No, and I realize england is not ideal for solar panels, but at least a solar panel would be a net gain once deployed, while these plants are a net loss.
I would count on this damaging gameplay experience. Gran Turisimo 3 includes an auto-pilot mode. When you first start playing the game it's not infeasible that the auto-pilot is a better race car driver than you... So you might end up using it a bit and before you know it, you can only use the auto-pilot because you're not good enough to compete on your own at the current difficulty.
Personally, when this happened to me I went back and restarted without using B-Spec mode on a race I hadn't already won at least once (using B-spec to farm for credits to buy competitive cars for other races was a different story). I enjoyed the gameplay experience MUCH more the second time.
Why not a 1.5TB for your data and 256GB for your OS and applications?
The hybrids can't regenerate all of the braking energy, so you'd still benefit doing it while hybrids were braking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
Where do you think the energy that the plate captures comes from? It comes from the kinetic energy of the car (unless you have another suggested source). Kinetic energy of a car is almost always it's forward momentum and nothing else, thus you ARE slowing the car down. To compensate the driver will apply the gas and burn more carbon.
Why didn't the store just buy solar panels?
It's unlikely that they would cool it down that much. Your engine radiates heat continually while it's running so if you can recapture waste heat that is desirable. Increasing energy efficiency through recapturing waste energy is not free energy though.
Free energy, what they're suggesting here, is impossible. If you had plates to steal kinetic energy from the cars on the downhill paths though, that would be a valid use to recapture waste (although making a flat parking lot would be better yet for efficiency)