It's more efficient to use spare wind cycles to fill gravity storage than to make hydrogen, allowing for buffering against calms (there are also plans to use the batteries of electric cars as buffers, too). The only current advantage hydrogen has is the aforementioned more-easily-pumped nature of the beast.
Unless you know something I don't. Which is more likely than not. Am I missing something?
Where would you get the hydrogen? Electrolysis isn't exactly highly efficient, and if you're going to do electricity -> hydrogen -> electricity -> wheels of the bus go round and round, there's a step in there that could be eliminated...
I know, I know, it's quite a lot quicker to fill a tank of hydrogen than it is to recharge a battery. But hydrogen is no magic bullet.
He said "with exceptions." (", Have you ever used public transport on the Continent? It's almost always brilliant. Though some places in the UK have great public transport. Others... not so much.
Well, considering that Bletchley Park (and all the XX Committee efforts) were used in the interception and decryption of encrypted military communications from a country on the other side of a declared war, I don't see the comparison.
Perhaps you were thinking of the Mail Censor? People's post was read, any "secrets" redacted, and the letter forwarded. Why is this different? Because it was international mail that was censored, and it was known to be happening (usually there was a nice big stamp "Cleared by the Censor" on the envelope, which rather gave it away), and they weren't holding what they found against you (mainly); they merely wanted to make sure you weren't posting "information useful to the enemy" (say a frontline soldier mentioning his unit, and where he is). Very different to the current surveillance.
As far as I remember (it was 1994 - I was young enough that I'm shocked I remember hearing about it) it was more massacre than war. But "hellish amount of people dies in a very short time" gets across either way, which is what the point is, neh?
It may be more PC, but I find the latter definition to have a refreshing honesty and to be remarkably free of memetic baggage. I humbly request that you do a straight swap, and encourage others to do the same. (",)
They weren't likely to be imprisoned for very long, if at all, which I suspect is what you're getting at. The point may actually have been coherent if you'd bothered to check the spelling. They are a tribe called Tutsi. As usual, apologies for the rant if there are mitigating factors.
Offtopic(ish): I wish people were forced to define "Al-Qaeda" if they wanted to use it. It's turned into a real chicken-and-egg problem, where there's organisations called Al-Qaeda because they know the name scares Westerners. There are people who say the original was a "terrorism bank," a database (literal translation is The Base), a methodology, a mulitnational terrorism franchise something like a malevolent McDonalds (a redundancy, I know ",) or never existed!
Foreign citizens owning property/companies/stuff in OUR country? Surely not!
'Course, it's not my country.
It's been the reality all over the world for years. The rest of the world has just started earning enough to be able to buy bits of you, now.
Massive civil disobedience might topple a government. It might topple several. It takes rather more to actually change the mode of government (see "Zapatistas" at your nearest search engine for evidence).
Offtopic: I've sworn fealty to nothing and no-one. I pay the government, and take advantage of the services they provide. Unfortunately, that seems to go to their heads.
There's also the problem of cache coherency across 1000 cores when not operating on massively parallel data; if each core has a copy of a variable, and one updates it... then what? Intel have answered that question intelligently before, but I'm not sure the old ways will scale.
It's called "trace" in the diet for a reason. But I assume this is talking about easily exploitable ore deposits. And flat-panels dying off is bad, but no zinc removes a very nice battery-type from electric vehicle research...
Sorry.
The important part is the "defined": since 1893, the unit at the base of American Standard mass has been defined in terms of the kilogram; without the kilogram, it's now meaningless. Is that any better explained?
This isn't going to be a reference mass; the idea is to make this the same weight as the old platinum reference mass (or the weight the platinum mass was, or whatever), compute the number of silicon atoms it contains, then define the kilogram as "the mass of a sphere containing[x] atoms of silicon-28."
It's the same idea as the conversion of the metre from "two marks on a platinum-iridium bar" (which is what the metre became when it was discovered they'd gotten the Equator/North Pole distance measurement wrong) to the distance travelled by light in whatever minute fraction of a second it is. The kilogram is the holdout basic SI unit not defined in "universal constants."
In the United States, the (avoirdupois) pound as a unit of mass has been officially defined in terms of the kilogram since the Mendenhall Order of 1893.
In 1958 the United States and countries of the Commonwealth of Nations agreed upon common definitions for the pound and the yard. The international avoirdupois pound was defined as exactly 453.59237 grams.
You can't see how, why, where or when Muslims have to follow the same laws as everyone else?
That method of debating doesn't work on the internet; we can read back previous posts. (",)
I meant I can't see how "Muslims do whatever the hell they feel like doing," as you asserted. Apologies if it was unclear, though I can't see how. Is English your first language? If there's a misphrasing in what I said, please, point it out. I'm convinced my ability with "human" languages is atrophying daily; perhaps you'll find the proof.
Anyway: I asked, quite politely I thought, for you to provide a fuller argument to support that assertion. It's hard to debate unsupported declarations, as it's difficult not to believe they're not personal assumptions, which generally moves us straight to the "flame war" section of the evening's entertainment. (",)
Religion vs. culture: religion is the reason for the hijab, culture for female circumcision. It does matter. Plus, condemning a culture can be fairly narrow, whereas condemning "Islam" (in reality, two separate religions, plus a separate mystical tradition) demonises 20% of the population of the world.
1: You claimed Islam and Christianity are entirely different religions. That's what I replied to. If you meant to say "cultures," that's a different argument. That's fine. But please use your turn signals when changing course. ",)
2:
The same laws apply to Muslims, but that doesn't stop them from doing whatever the hell they feel like doing.
That was what you said. I couldn't see how, why, where, or when it was true. I may have been a little overblown in my response. Melodrama as a way to provoke debate, I suppose. Would you care to elaborate on your original statement?
Because imported corn can be too cheap to compete with, so you lose your farm. Try and buy even cheap corn when you've just had your livelihood foreclosed on.
Christianity and Islam are fundamentally different religions.
Would you like to prop up your unfounded declaration, or should I just knock it down now?
The same laws apply to Muslims, but that doesn't stop them from doing whatever the hell they feel like doing."
Has the US Supreme Court declared Muslims unprosecutable, and the whole internet (bar you, of course) missed it? Or are you implying an entire religion, with 20% of the world's population as members, have no conscience?
Or have I completely misunderstood you? Possibly, I'm not at my sharpest at the moment. So apologies if I've slandered you. I hope I have, I really do.
Get Torpark, the completely idiot-proof way to get onto the Tor network. While you have to have a high conspiracy-theory tolerance, you'll find information on the.onion sites. Just use your own judgement on its reliability.
Just what was the American Civil War? A rebellion of oh, half the country, right? And they were well enough armed they had their own warships and submarines, right? How did that work out?
And for those that say "the military are Americans, they wouldn't (shoot/invade/bomb/x) without defections," or similar: 5 words. Sherman's march to the sea.
An armed populace can't win a war. They just prevent the other side from doing so. Foreign invaders tend to lose to armed guerrillas through logistical problems, not military defeat.
Slashdot Mirror
It's more efficient to use spare wind cycles to fill gravity storage than to make hydrogen, allowing for buffering against calms (there are also plans to use the batteries of electric cars as buffers, too). The only current advantage hydrogen has is the aforementioned more-easily-pumped nature of the beast. Unless you know something I don't. Which is more likely than not. Am I missing something?
Where would you get the hydrogen? Electrolysis isn't exactly highly efficient, and if you're going to do
electricity -> hydrogen -> electricity -> wheels of the bus go round and round,
there's a step in there that could be eliminated... I know, I know, it's quite a lot quicker to fill a tank of hydrogen than it is to recharge a battery. But hydrogen is no magic bullet.
He said "with exceptions." (",
Have you ever used public transport on the Continent? It's almost always brilliant.
Though some places in the UK have great public transport. Others... not so much.
Well, considering that Bletchley Park (and all the XX Committee efforts) were used in the interception and decryption of encrypted military communications from a country on the other side of a declared war, I don't see the comparison.
Perhaps you were thinking of the Mail Censor? People's post was read, any "secrets" redacted, and the letter forwarded.
Why is this different? Because it was international mail that was censored, and it was known to be happening (usually there was a nice big stamp "Cleared by the Censor" on the envelope, which rather gave it away), and they weren't holding what they found against you (mainly); they merely wanted to make sure you weren't posting "information useful to the enemy" (say a frontline soldier mentioning his unit, and where he is). Very different to the current surveillance.
As far as I remember (it was 1994 - I was young enough that I'm shocked I remember hearing about it) it was more massacre than war. But "hellish amount of people dies in a very short time" gets across either way, which is what the point is, neh?
It may be more PC, but I find the latter definition to have a refreshing honesty and to be remarkably free of memetic baggage. I humbly request that you do a straight swap, and encourage others to do the same. (",)
Two Wikipedia links in one post; I deserve to be shot.
They weren't likely to be imprisoned for very long, if at all, which I suspect is what you're getting at. The point may actually have been coherent if you'd bothered to check the spelling. They are a tribe called Tutsi.
As usual, apologies for the rant if there are mitigating factors.
Offtopic(ish):
I wish people were forced to define "Al-Qaeda" if they wanted to use it. It's turned into a real chicken-and-egg problem, where there's organisations called Al-Qaeda because they know the name scares Westerners. There are people who say the original was a "terrorism bank," a database (literal translation is The Base), a methodology, a mulitnational terrorism franchise something like a malevolent McDonalds (a redundancy, I know ",) or never existed!
Foreign citizens owning property/companies/stuff in OUR country? Surely not!
'Course, it's not my country.
It's been the reality all over the world for years. The rest of the world has just started earning enough to be able to buy bits of you, now.
Massive civil disobedience might topple a government. It might topple several. It takes rather more to actually change the mode of government (see "Zapatistas" at your nearest search engine for evidence).
Offtopic: I've sworn fealty to nothing and no-one. I pay the government, and take advantage of the services they provide. Unfortunately, that seems to go to their heads.
Take a look at the bus architecture in the Cell.
There's also the problem of cache coherency across 1000 cores when not operating on massively parallel data; if each core has a copy of a variable, and one updates it... then what? Intel have answered that question intelligently before, but I'm not sure the old ways will scale.
It's called "trace" in the diet for a reason. But I assume this is talking about easily exploitable ore deposits. And flat-panels dying off is bad, but no zinc removes a very nice battery-type from electric vehicle research...
(",)
True. Perhaps the SI definition will eliminate the " a sphere containing" phrase. But it is, as previously noted, the shape most easily checked.
Great. Glad to see I've not lost ALL comprehensibility. (",)
Sorry.
The important part is the "defined": since 1893, the unit at the base of American Standard mass has been defined in terms of the kilogram; without the kilogram, it's now meaningless. Is that any better explained?
This isn't going to be a reference mass; the idea is to make this the same weight as the old platinum reference mass (or the weight the platinum mass was, or whatever), compute the number of silicon atoms it contains, then define the kilogram as "the mass of a sphere containing[x] atoms of silicon-28."
It's the same idea as the conversion of the metre from "two marks on a platinum-iridium bar" (which is what the metre became when it was discovered they'd gotten the Equator/North Pole distance measurement wrong) to the distance travelled by light in whatever minute fraction of a second it is. The kilogram is the holdout basic SI unit not defined in "universal constants."
From the Wikipedia article posted elsewhere in the comments by realisticradical.
Godwin's law. We're done here.
Pity; I was quite enjoying myself.
That method of debating doesn't work on the internet; we can read back previous posts. (",) I meant I can't see how "Muslims do whatever the hell they feel like doing," as you asserted. Apologies if it was unclear, though I can't see how. Is English your first language? If there's a misphrasing in what I said, please, point it out. I'm convinced my ability with "human" languages is atrophying daily; perhaps you'll find the proof.
Anyway: I asked, quite politely I thought, for you to provide a fuller argument to support that assertion. It's hard to debate unsupported declarations, as it's difficult not to believe they're not personal assumptions, which generally moves us straight to the "flame war" section of the evening's entertainment. (",) Religion vs. culture: religion is the reason for the hijab, culture for female circumcision. It does matter. Plus, condemning a culture can be fairly narrow, whereas condemning "Islam" (in reality, two separate religions, plus a separate mystical tradition) demonises 20% of the population of the world.
You claimed Islam and Christianity are entirely different religions. That's what I replied to. If you meant to say "cultures," that's a different argument. That's fine. But please use your turn signals when changing course. ",)
2:
That was what you said. I couldn't see how, why, where, or when it was true. I may have been a little overblown in my response. Melodrama as a way to provoke debate, I suppose. Would you care to elaborate on your original statement?
I don't see how, sorry. Could you point me toward an article or something?
Because imported corn can be too cheap to compete with, so you lose your farm. Try and buy even cheap corn when you've just had your livelihood foreclosed on.
Would you like to prop up your unfounded declaration, or should I just knock it down now?
Has the US Supreme Court declared Muslims unprosecutable, and the whole internet (bar you, of course) missed it? Or are you implying an entire religion, with 20% of the world's population as members, have no conscience?
Or have I completely misunderstood you? Possibly, I'm not at my sharpest at the moment. So apologies if I've slandered you. I hope I have, I really do.
Get Torpark, the completely idiot-proof way to get onto the Tor network. While you have to have a high conspiracy-theory tolerance, you'll find information on the .onion sites. Just use your own judgement on its reliability.
Pity Richard Pryor's dead... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster's_Millions_(1985_film)
Just what was the American Civil War?
A rebellion of oh, half the country, right?
And they were well enough armed they had their own warships and submarines, right?
How did that work out?
And for those that say "the military are Americans, they wouldn't (shoot/invade/bomb/x) without defections," or similar: 5 words. Sherman's march to the sea.
An armed populace can't win a war. They just prevent the other side from doing so. Foreign invaders tend to lose to armed guerrillas through logistical problems, not military defeat.