Yeah. I think of something made of plastic that I'd like to print maybe once a year. I think of something metal I'd like to print once every other week or so.
The word revolution also contains the word evolution, and you might have noticed that we've evolved past the point of calling a paper printer a necessary component of computing today.
And the word "internet" contains the word "tern", so clearly it is built upon angry arctic birds with sharp beaks that dive bomb anyone who gets too close to their nesting grounds.
Indeed. I've ordered 3d prints online several times and as things stand there is no reason I'd ever do otherwise. The choice is, "have something produced using top notch hardware and finished by professionals", or "have something produced by crappy hardware, by you". The marginal cost may be lower if you do it yourself, but you have to plop down $1k first, so unless you 3d print a lot, you don't win even on that comparison. It's just not worth it.
If you run a business where you're 3d printing prototypes every day, that would be different. But regular for home users, I just can't see an argument for it.
That's really a key issue. Most "standalone" things people want are not made of plastics, except for toys. There are a some things - for example, parts for a small homemade drone or whatnot, where strength is not important but lightness is. But most often, if you want something "standalone", you want it out of metal.
Being able to print replacement plastic parts for other things could be nice, mind you. For example, I've twice had to replace a plastic part on my refrigerator and it cost something like $50 each time with a nearly month delay, due to customs fees, shipping to where I am, etc. Having been able to print one out would have been great. Except, having a 3d printer alone wouldn't have been enough, because there's no "universal spare part database" that manufacturers upload to. A 3d scanner as well might have been able to enable reproducing the part from scanning its broken pieces, except that not only do you have to have one, the part was transparent, and many 3d scanners don't like transparent objects.
A "3d printing revolution" may come some day. But things are a lot more complicated than just making it possible to print something out of some material.
Please ignore the correlation between "looks" and genetic indicators of reproductive health
That would be a nice argument if there was some universal agreement on what is attractive. In some cultures, thin is attractive. In others, fat. Some places like women who stretch their necks out. Others like their feet bound to the point that they can hardly walk. In Meiji era Japan, it was seen as attractive for women to paint their teeth black. Do you find that hot? There is no single standard of beauty. You cannot just declare yours to be universally applicable.
The majority of "beauty" traits have nothing to do with genetic indicators of reproductive health. That said, there are some. For example, for both sexes, "clear skin" is usually desirable, as that is an indicator of immune system fitness. And of course standard secondary sex characteristics, including having typical voice ranges appropriate to their sex, muscle mass in men, in women breasts and wide hips, etc. But the majority of the specific details that make up the "look" of an attractive man or woman versus other men and women in their society are simply cultural.
Try extending your graph back to 2000 - it tells a story opposite to the one you're thinking of.
By the way, most of those manufacturing jobs are never coming back. A lot of them have simply been priced completely out of the US market. Many of them don't even exist anymore, having been taken over by automation.
As for where US job growth has been: the US is increasingly a service economy. Also energy has been growing a lot. Correspondingly, construction too. Healthcare... retail... business & professional services..leisure and hospitality... all strong growth fields.
The Democrats controlled the House in the 80s, so spending budgets came from them.
Right. It's the Democrats who are really into extreme tax cuts for the wealthy! Why didn't I notice this before? I also apparently missed the part where the president signs bills that he doesn't support.
The "Reagan tax cuts" that passed were very close to what Reagan was seeking in each case.
According to this graph
"According to this deliberately deceptive graph..."
Anything that shows financial issues a long period of time, without including inflation, while trying to argue that "the last person in the list did the most of X", is being partisan at best, intentionally misleading at worst. In reality, even inflation alone isn't enough; the best figure you can use is debt as a fraction of GDP. But I digress.
As a second issue, you make it misleading when you focus on debt and not the deficit. Because the deficit makes much clearer what sort of situations the next person inherits, as well as the immediate impact of financial shocks and passed bills.
The reality is, when Obama took office, there was a massive deficit left behind by Bush. During Obama's administration it reduced every year.
Talking about debt isn't helping your case any. Here's the deficit (change in debt) from year to year: Link
Why is that Republicans keep blowing the budget? Well, let's look at the case of Bush. Wow, whodathunkit, massive tax breaks to top income earners skyrockets debt, news at 11! And yes, having the government hawk itself into debt is great for the short term strength of the stock market.
Obama inherited the largest economic recession since the Great Depression. And the US is now out of it. Now you can argue over whether someone else could have done it faster or not. But let's not lie about the facts.
1) You're assuming that they replace the sugar with something that is predominantly fat. That's not a given as an assumption.
2) Sugar does not contribute to a feeling of fullness. Fat and protein do. Hence why sugar is bad for weight gain. Fat is worse for weight gain than protein because it's over twice as calorie dense, but at least it contributes to fullness.
If you're in the EU / Schengen it's easy; I've talked to a number of people who just came here, got an apartment and started working. But I don't know the details (particularly for your fiancee, whether you could get a permit for her through you working here). You should ask Útlendingastofnun (the immigration office) - the website is utl.is. I know if she was coming alone that she'd have to get full atvinnuleyfi and dvalarleyfi (work and residence permits), which is a long process with a lot of conditions - but there's also a permitting process for family members of people who live here.
Yeah, we (like the rest of the world) have been watching what's going on over there; you have our sympathy.:( Don't get me wrong, our political situation is far from perfect (mainly corruption - also our last election results were inconclusive so they're struggling to find a viable coalition). But (so far at least!) nobody's been firebombing our economy out of anger or turning us into a surveillance state or anything like that. And radical/racist nationalists only ever get a trivial fraction of the vote.
You know what, here... if you're actually seriously considering a move here, you'll probably have a ton of other questions, so if you do, just drop me a line - meQme0Q3@eaQku.neQt (remove Qs to despammify). I'd be glad to help:)
This. Unlike Germans. It says a lot when a people accurately plans down to the slightest detail the extermination of whole ethnicities and build a whole industrial complex around it
Oh please, Stalin was hardly better. He sent tens of millions to be worked to death, knowing that there was a regular stream of undesirable ethnicities and people suspected of being political opponents to replace them with. And he was just as much a militaristic expansionist as Hitler, having carefully negotiated with Hitler how Europe was supposed to be divided up with him, until Hitler stabbed him in the back.
Ukraine is not "pretty fascist". If you take every candidate who could remotely be described as "fascist" in the 2014 election, combined they got less than 2% of the vote. Right Sector's Dmytro Yarosh, the most clearly fascist, got 0.7% of the vote. If that's what you call a country being "fascist" then fascism has lost all meaning.
If you're talking about the fact that there *"exist* nazis in Ukraine that are fighting for the country in Donbas, well, duh, there is no ban on that. While you're at it, however, you might want to Google Russian nazis in Donbas; there's no shortage of them fighting for the other side as well.
Unlike the others, I'm going to assume that you're saying "at 190km, they must have also been far enough along into the burn that they also had significant horizontal velocity":)
And yes, like the overwhelming majority of modern Russian launch vehicle failures, this was an upper stage failure. Their lower stages have been reliable workhorses, but they've long struggled with upper stages.
Or it could just be insufficient conching, as a cost-saving measure. Conching is what turns the sugar from big granular crystals into crystals so small that you don't feel their texture.
Healthier, too, without the extra sugar. Heck, if you look at the nutritional data on cocoa powder (aka, with neither the sugar *nor* the fat) it's actually healthy. In addition to being packed with tons of minerals and flavanoids, 100 grams of cocoa powder, at 228 kcal, has 19,6g protein (40% of the minimum daily recommended value) and 33,2g fiber (133% DV), and packed with minerals (75-200% DV of Fe, Mg, K, Cu and Mn) and flavanoids. The challenge is making chocolate and chocolate flavored goods that aren't overloaded in fat and sugar, but still taste good.
As a chocoholic, I strongly welcome any advances on this front;) Make a "flash cooled" (creamy texture with less cocoa butter) dark chocolate with this new "fast dissolving sugar" approach, and you've got my business.
Slashdot Mirror
The next First Lady will be.
123D Catch app rarely ever works. And never works with transparent materials.
Yeah. I think of something made of plastic that I'd like to print maybe once a year. I think of something metal I'd like to print once every other week or so.
And the word "internet" contains the word "tern", so clearly it is built upon angry arctic birds with sharp beaks that dive bomb anyone who gets too close to their nesting grounds.
Indeed. I've ordered 3d prints online several times and as things stand there is no reason I'd ever do otherwise. The choice is, "have something produced using top notch hardware and finished by professionals", or "have something produced by crappy hardware, by you". The marginal cost may be lower if you do it yourself, but you have to plop down $1k first, so unless you 3d print a lot, you don't win even on that comparison. It's just not worth it.
If you run a business where you're 3d printing prototypes every day, that would be different. But regular for home users, I just can't see an argument for it.
That's really a key issue. Most "standalone" things people want are not made of plastics, except for toys. There are a some things - for example, parts for a small homemade drone or whatnot, where strength is not important but lightness is. But most often, if you want something "standalone", you want it out of metal.
Being able to print replacement plastic parts for other things could be nice, mind you. For example, I've twice had to replace a plastic part on my refrigerator and it cost something like $50 each time with a nearly month delay, due to customs fees, shipping to where I am, etc. Having been able to print one out would have been great. Except, having a 3d printer alone wouldn't have been enough, because there's no "universal spare part database" that manufacturers upload to. A 3d scanner as well might have been able to enable reproducing the part from scanning its broken pieces, except that not only do you have to have one, the part was transparent, and many 3d scanners don't like transparent objects.
A "3d printing revolution" may come some day. But things are a lot more complicated than just making it possible to print something out of some material.
That would be a nice argument if there was some universal agreement on what is attractive. In some cultures, thin is attractive. In others, fat. Some places like women who stretch their necks out. Others like their feet bound to the point that they can hardly walk. In Meiji era Japan, it was seen as attractive for women to paint their teeth black. Do you find that hot? There is no single standard of beauty. You cannot just declare yours to be universally applicable.
The majority of "beauty" traits have nothing to do with genetic indicators of reproductive health. That said, there are some. For example, for both sexes, "clear skin" is usually desirable, as that is an indicator of immune system fitness. And of course standard secondary sex characteristics, including having typical voice ranges appropriate to their sex, muscle mass in men, in women breasts and wide hips, etc. But the majority of the specific details that make up the "look" of an attractive man or woman versus other men and women in their society are simply cultural.
"We know A LOT about clouds. If you've got any cloud questions, ask us."
Try extending your graph back to 2000 - it tells a story opposite to the one you're thinking of.
By the way, most of those manufacturing jobs are never coming back. A lot of them have simply been priced completely out of the US market. Many of them don't even exist anymore, having been taken over by automation.
As for where US job growth has been: the US is increasingly a service economy. Also energy has been growing a lot. Correspondingly, construction too. Healthcare... retail... business & professional services..leisure and hospitality... all strong growth fields.
What tax policy did Obama pass "by fiat"?
Right. It's the Democrats who are really into extreme tax cuts for the wealthy! Why didn't I notice this before? I also apparently missed the part where the president signs bills that he doesn't support.
The "Reagan tax cuts" that passed were very close to what Reagan was seeking in each case.
"According to this deliberately deceptive graph..."
Anything that shows financial issues a long period of time, without including inflation, while trying to argue that "the last person in the list did the most of X", is being partisan at best, intentionally misleading at worst. In reality, even inflation alone isn't enough; the best figure you can use is debt as a fraction of GDP. But I digress.
As a second issue, you make it misleading when you focus on debt and not the deficit. Because the deficit makes much clearer what sort of situations the next person inherits, as well as the immediate impact of financial shocks and passed bills.
The reality is, when Obama took office, there was a massive deficit left behind by Bush. During Obama's administration it reduced every year.
Talking about debt isn't helping your case any. Here's the deficit (change in debt) from year to year: Link
Why is that Republicans keep blowing the budget? Well, let's look at the case of Bush. Wow, whodathunkit, massive tax breaks to top income earners skyrockets debt, news at 11! And yes, having the government hawk itself into debt is great for the short term strength of the stock market.
Re, debt outlook under Trump: absolutely not if he enacts his "Bush Tax Cuts+++ proposal.
In what world?
Want to use U-6 unemployment? Nope, not that one either.
Obama inherited the largest economic recession since the Great Depression. And the US is now out of it. Now you can argue over whether someone else could have done it faster or not. But let's not lie about the facts.
1) You're assuming that they replace the sugar with something that is predominantly fat. That's not a given as an assumption.
2) Sugar does not contribute to a feeling of fullness. Fat and protein do. Hence why sugar is bad for weight gain. Fat is worse for weight gain than protein because it's over twice as calorie dense, but at least it contributes to fullness.
If you're in the EU / Schengen it's easy; I've talked to a number of people who just came here, got an apartment and started working. But I don't know the details (particularly for your fiancee, whether you could get a permit for her through you working here). You should ask Útlendingastofnun (the immigration office) - the website is utl.is. I know if she was coming alone that she'd have to get full atvinnuleyfi and dvalarleyfi (work and residence permits), which is a long process with a lot of conditions - but there's also a permitting process for family members of people who live here.
Yeah, we (like the rest of the world) have been watching what's going on over there; you have our sympathy. :( Don't get me wrong, our political situation is far from perfect (mainly corruption - also our last election results were inconclusive so they're struggling to find a viable coalition). But (so far at least!) nobody's been firebombing our economy out of anger or turning us into a surveillance state or anything like that. And radical/racist nationalists only ever get a trivial fraction of the vote.
You know what, here... if you're actually seriously considering a move here, you'll probably have a ton of other questions, so if you do, just drop me a line - meQme0Q3@eaQku.neQt (remove Qs to despammify). I'd be glad to help :)
Oh please, Stalin was hardly better. He sent tens of millions to be worked to death, knowing that there was a regular stream of undesirable ethnicities and people suspected of being political opponents to replace them with. And he was just as much a militaristic expansionist as Hitler, having carefully negotiated with Hitler how Europe was supposed to be divided up with him, until Hitler stabbed him in the back.
Ukraine is not "pretty fascist". If you take every candidate who could remotely be described as "fascist" in the 2014 election, combined they got less than 2% of the vote. Right Sector's Dmytro Yarosh, the most clearly fascist, got 0.7% of the vote. If that's what you call a country being "fascist" then fascism has lost all meaning.
If you're talking about the fact that there *"exist* nazis in Ukraine that are fighting for the country in Donbas, well, duh, there is no ban on that. While you're at it, however, you might want to Google Russian nazis in Donbas; there's no shortage of them fighting for the other side as well.
Unlike the others, I'm going to assume that you're saying "at 190km, they must have also been far enough along into the burn that they also had significant horizontal velocity" :)
And yes, like the overwhelming majority of modern Russian launch vehicle failures, this was an upper stage failure. Their lower stages have been reliable workhorses, but they've long struggled with upper stages.
Reused many times on the test stand, and in prep for relaunch.
Or it could just be insufficient conching, as a cost-saving measure. Conching is what turns the sugar from big granular crystals into crystals so small that you don't feel their texture.
Come to Iceland. People here are more likely to complain if they ordered horse and it turned out to be something else ;)
(nice sig!)
Healthier, too, without the extra sugar. Heck, if you look at the nutritional data on cocoa powder (aka, with neither the sugar *nor* the fat) it's actually healthy. In addition to being packed with tons of minerals and flavanoids, 100 grams of cocoa powder, at 228 kcal, has 19,6g protein (40% of the minimum daily recommended value) and 33,2g fiber (133% DV), and packed with minerals (75-200% DV of Fe, Mg, K, Cu and Mn) and flavanoids. The challenge is making chocolate and chocolate flavored goods that aren't overloaded in fat and sugar, but still taste good.
As a chocoholic, I strongly welcome any advances on this front ;) Make a "flash cooled" (creamy texture with less cocoa butter) dark chocolate with this new "fast dissolving sugar" approach, and you've got my business.
Why can't they just eat horse like normal people?
Um... it's sugar.... it's the same chemical...
I live in Europe and where I am milk chocolate is more popular. Although the type is more like Dove milk chocolate than Hershey's.
I personally do prefer dark, though.