I thought the "without causing americans to not be able to buy food" part didn't need to be explicit.
And I'm not sure I agree, given the Fed isn't the US government. And of course the topic was buying new ones not holding existing ones - the Social Security Trust Fund while a huge holder isn't going to be buying new ones so much anymore.
And instead of just taking the "attributed" reason they bothered to do some work and report on what they suspect is the actual physical/chemical cause rather than just a catch-all "disorder". Since that helps with trying to reduce the problem.
Why didn't you do that sometime in the last 20 years if it was so damn obvious?
But the ambiguity resolved in the very next sentence. And if you know about the "march back into relevancy" then it should be clear which of the possible meanings are actually intended.
Because the word "beg" means ask. The word "question" means "question". So "beg the question" clearly means "ask the question".
Would my completely incorrect usage of the moot offend you if I said "who cares, it's a moot point anyway".
If you are talking about logic or in a formal debate then sure "beg the question" means what you say. In other contexts, sadly language is democrat and we lost that vote a long time ago...
He's using the standard definition of "peak oil", you know when production rate hits its maximum. Which has exactly nothing to do with how much is in the ground - it's how much is being extracted.
It's seems pretty obvious that peak oil for the US was in 1970. Sure we may ramp up production in the future in which case that'll just be a local maxima and not the actual peak. But it has been 40 years so far...
So is God not omnipotent? Or does he not care about the moral behaviour of people?
Given it's CS Lewis I wouldn't be surprised, since it wasn't exactly uncommon for his arguments to set God up for what appeared to be a loss and then spin the argument around brilliantly. I just haven't read that particular item of his.
CS Lewis writing something about morality that doesn't involce Chistianity seems pretty unlikely to me.
That's a very christian response of you too. All I did was ask a simple question and point out that God is omnipotent and cares about the morals of others - neither of those two claims seems particulatly controversial from a Christian perspective.
But I guess you must be in some school of Chrisitianity in which God isn't omnipotent and calling brothers fools is acceptable behaviour as well as being proud of your educational prowess. I have three degrees in the sciences - the standard bachelors, a masters, and a PhD. I'm sure you beat that, it's not exactly a big ask.
""" This includes substances * that were found to meet the categorization criteria for persistence, bioaccumulation potential and inherent toxicity to non-human organisms, and that are known to be in commerce, or of commercial interest, in Canada; these substances are considered to be high priorities for assessment of ecological risk; and/or * that were found either to meet the categorization criteria for greatest potential for exposure of Canadians or to present an intermediate potential for exposure, and were identified as posing a high hazard to human health based on available evidence on carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, developmental toxicity or reproductive toxicity; these substances are considered to be high priorities for assessment of risk to human health....
whether the substance is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that * have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity; * constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends; or * constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health. """
It's a government list, they can put whatever they like on it...
It would be significantly easier to go back to "old school" and just extract it from the pancreas of animals. Assuming you aren't allergic to that form (which isn't chemically identicial to human insulin). Otherwise splicing the genes into E-coli can't be that difficult with modern equipment - it was done in 1978 after all. But I'm not a molecular biologist to know...
Casinos being private property can, in a lot of jurisdictions, ban people from entry for whatever reason they like (that doesn't run afoul of anti-racism type laws).
Las Vegas casinos, for example, can and do ban people they think are card counting. In fact they can ban you from their property because "you were winning" and be perfectly within the law.
Where in the phrase "arrange things" do you see "use 3D" and not "have carefully though out everything that appears in the scene"?
I don't care about bad film makers, or bad game makers - I'm comparing the good versions.
Of course games can draw the eye as well, but scanning the entire screen is pretty much the gameplay in a FPS (at least I think it is, that's a genre I haven't played since Quake 2 broke the things I liked in Quake).
Games would be more headache inducing I suspect. A competent 3D film maker is going to arrange things so that you are looking where they want you to look.
A game can't do that, and hence the parallax and focus queues of distance will conflict more often.
Or the jury/judge decides to side with the prosecutor's claim that it is proof that you visited the site that was bombed a week after your visit, adding to the circumstantial evidence that you dun it.
Your "couple of servers" probably doesn't meet the criteria for counting in this case:
""" The process defined a data center as any room larger than 500 square feet dedicated to data processing that meets the one of the four tier classifications defined by The Uptime Institute. """
Now you could put a couple of servers in a 500 square feet room, but that seems pretty unlikely.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the "without causing americans to not be able to buy food" part didn't need to be explicit.
And I'm not sure I agree, given the Fed isn't the US government. And of course the topic was buying new ones not holding existing ones - the Social Security Trust Fund while a huge holder isn't going to be buying new ones so much anymore.
And instead of just taking the "attributed" reason they bothered to do some work and report on what they suspect is the actual physical/chemical cause rather than just a catch-all "disorder". Since that helps with trying to reduce the problem.
Why didn't you do that sometime in the last 20 years if it was so damn obvious?
And then where does the Federal Government borrow the money to rollover expiring treasuries, let along fund current spending?
Sure if you want to call my blu-ray disc a CD drive because it can read CDs.
So Scully says exactly what you said, but he needs to STFU and let the anonymous cowards have their voices heard?
Where were all those innovators below before Jobs took over?
I take it you also blame all the un-named employees at Enron for that company's failure?
Sure that sentence is ambigiuous.
But the ambiguity resolved in the very next sentence. And if you know about the "march back into relevancy" then it should be clear which of the possible meanings are actually intended.
But it's certainly not a CD drive. It's a crippled DVD drive.
Because the word "beg" means ask. The word "question" means "question". So "beg the question" clearly means "ask the question".
Would my completely incorrect usage of the moot offend you if I said "who cares, it's a moot point anyway".
If you are talking about logic or in a formal debate then sure "beg the question" means what you say. In other contexts, sadly language is democrat and we lost that vote a long time ago...
Hit 40 feet left of their buildings you mean.
I don't think the reason matters for whether something has peaked or not.
Of course the US could ramp back up production, but if they never do and instead trickle it out is there any difference?
He's using the standard definition of "peak oil", you know when production rate hits its maximum. Which has exactly nothing to do with how much is in the ground - it's how much is being extracted.
So here's the chart: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS1&f=A
It's seems pretty obvious that peak oil for the US was in 1970. Sure we may ramp up production in the future in which case that'll just be a local maxima and not the actual peak. But it has been 40 years so far...
So is God not omnipotent? Or does he not care about the moral behaviour of people?
Given it's CS Lewis I wouldn't be surprised, since it wasn't exactly uncommon for his arguments to set God up for what appeared to be a loss and then spin the argument around brilliantly. I just haven't read that particular item of his.
CS Lewis writing something about morality that doesn't involce Chistianity seems pretty unlikely to me.
That's a very christian response of you too. All I did was ask a simple question and point out that God is omnipotent and cares about the morals of others - neither of those two claims seems particulatly controversial from a Christian perspective.
But I guess you must be in some school of Chrisitianity in which God isn't omnipotent and calling brothers fools is acceptable behaviour as well as being proud of your educational prowess. I have three degrees in the sciences - the standard bachelors, a masters, and a PhD. I'm sure you beat that, it's not exactly a big ask.
I realise reading is hard, but:
""" ...
This includes substances
* that were found to meet the categorization criteria for persistence, bioaccumulation potential and inherent toxicity to non-human organisms, and that are known to be in commerce, or of commercial interest, in Canada; these substances are considered to be high priorities for assessment of ecological risk; and/or
* that were found either to meet the categorization criteria for greatest potential for exposure of Canadians or to present an intermediate potential for exposure, and were identified as posing a high hazard to human health based on available evidence on carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, developmental toxicity or reproductive toxicity; these substances are considered to be high priorities for assessment of risk to human health.
whether the substance is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that
* have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity;
* constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends; or
* constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.
"""
It's a government list, they can put whatever they like on it...
It would be significantly easier to go back to "old school" and just extract it from the pancreas of animals. Assuming you aren't allergic to that form (which isn't chemically identicial to human insulin). Otherwise splicing the genes into E-coli can't be that difficult with modern equipment - it was done in 1978 after all. But I'm not a molecular biologist to know...
One example of "old school", which is straight forward but tedious and hope to god you don't screw it up and inject the results:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1259392/
Casinos in vegas can do exactly that and the main ratinalle is that they are private property.
But it has exactly nothing to do with Norwegians playing the stock market.
Casinos being private property can, in a lot of jurisdictions, ban people from entry for whatever reason they like (that doesn't run afoul of anti-racism type laws).
Las Vegas casinos, for example, can and do ban people they think are card counting. In fact they can ban you from their property because "you were winning" and be perfectly within the law.
Atlantic City has completely different rules.
Did C.S. Lewis really mean to describe the God he followed like that? It's the perfect fit for the God of the bible...
How is that not what I said?
Where in the phrase "arrange things" do you see "use 3D" and not "have carefully though out everything that appears in the scene"?
I don't care about bad film makers, or bad game makers - I'm comparing the good versions.
Of course games can draw the eye as well, but scanning the entire screen is pretty much the gameplay in a FPS (at least I think it is, that's a genre I haven't played since Quake 2 broke the things I liked in Quake).
Games would be more headache inducing I suspect. A competent 3D film maker is going to arrange things so that you are looking where they want you to look.
A game can't do that, and hence the parallax and focus queues of distance will conflict more often.
Or the jury/judge decides to side with the prosecutor's claim that it is proof that you visited the site that was bombed a week after your visit, adding to the circumstantial evidence that you dun it.
Yes, it's not surprising they got a higher number. But it isn't counting the two servers in a closet case.
How big are your damn closets?
Why not try reading the article which contains the definition they used.
Your "couple of servers" probably doesn't meet the criteria for counting in this case:
"""
The process defined a data center as any room larger than 500 square feet dedicated to data processing that meets the one of the four tier classifications defined by The Uptime Institute.
"""
Now you could put a couple of servers in a 500 square feet room, but that seems pretty unlikely.