This article says that it's the hottest in 20 years.
Do you understand how patently *meaningless* that is?
We're in the middle of El Niño right now. Take that away and it's the hottest in 20 years. That's it. TWENTY.
Did you read the article? Apparently not:
2016 will very likely be the hottest year on record and a new high for the third year in a row, according to the UN. It means 16 of the 17 hottest years on record will have been this century.
You mean like refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding, because you find homosexuality morally abhorrent?
Lesbians are a protected class. People who bake cakes are not.
Well, hang on. Google/Wikipedia says sexual orientation is protected under employment laws, per the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. As for other areas, there are lawsuits in the works. Such as this one going to the Washington State Supreme Court today.
Tiles could be constructed that take energy from footsteps while *also* making it easier to walk and also being easier on your foot and joints.
No, because Second Law of Thermodynamics. Anything that takes energy from your body will cause work to be done by your foot and joints. If it becomes "easier" for your foot and joints, then you have recovered the energy that your foot and joints conveyed into the mechanical system.
Gaah, sorry. I meant the First law. You can't get more energy out of the system than you put into it. Getting energy from your walking and making it easier for you to walk would do that.
You have a point about springiness of the tiles vs. walking uphill (sloppiness on my part) but the snarky poster is not correct. Conservation of energy is relevant here, and always.
Tiles could be constructed that take energy from footsteps while *also* making it easier to walk and also being easier on your foot and joints.
No, because Second Law of Thermodynamics. Anything that takes energy from your body will cause work to be done by your foot and joints. If it becomes "easier" for your foot and joints, then you have recovered the energy that your foot and joints conveyed into the mechanical system.
This is because some of the energy that would be dissipated into the foot and joints could instead be captured as electrical and potential energy. The ground would then feel springy, which could help you walk (although from personal experience, this works best for running).
If that energy is recovered with this springiness so as to "help you walk" then it is not captured by the energy-harvesting tiles.
The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. -- Sir Arthur Eddingon
Let's assume a person with a mass of 80 kg sinks 0.5 cm into one of the tiles every 0.5 s. Then the energy conveyed to the tile is mgh = 80 kg * 9.8 m/s^2 * 0.005 m = 3.92 kg*m/s^2 = about 4 joules. At a walking pace of 1/0.5s, that corresponds to about 4/0.5 = 8 watts. Allowing for inefficiencies up to 50%, you get the 4 to 8 watt figure in TFA.
Funny, we have no e-mails, no proof of such CNN/GOP communications.
Not really. It was Wikileaks that released the CNN/DNC e-mails. Given the obvious bias Wikileaks has shown to the RNC, I'm not holding my breath to see any CNN/GOP e-mails from them.
I mean, if it was done on both sides - then why did CNN fire Donna Brazile as a contributor?
Apples and oranges.
What was "done" by CNN was communication with both parties to prepare questions for debates and interviews. As CNN said, it was "completely unremarkable."
Donna Brazile, on the other hand, leaked debate questions to her side (the Democrats.) And she quite brazenly said she would do it again. CNN was right to fire her as a contributor, because she abused her position intolerably.
CNN said the report was "unremarkable" and that the network regularly communicates with both Republicans and Democrats when preparing for interviews.
"This is completely unremarkable," a CNN spokeswoman told the Washington Examiner. "We have similar communications with Republicans. When preparing for interviews we are regularly sent suggestions from rival campaigns and political parties, both solicited and unsolicited. Casting a wide net to ensure a tough and fair interview isn't just common media practice, it's smart."
Your link is run by Alex Jones, an alt-right radio host and conspiracy theorist. Per the wikipedia article:
Jones has been the center of many controversies, including his statements about gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. He has accused the U.S. government of being involved in the Oklahoma City bombing, the September 11 attacks and the filming of fake Moon landings to hide NASA's secret technology. He says that government and big business have colluded to create a New World Order through "manufactured economic crises, sophisticated surveillance tech and--above all--inside-job terror attacks that fuel exploitable hysteria".
which argues that Clinton might win the number of votes "counted" but will not win the number of votes "cast" because of ignored Republican absentee ballots.
Did you actually look at the website where this came from? It doesn't exactly project an aura of credibility.
If it really works that way (and I could not find information to prove or disprove that theory), they might have a point.
Yes indeed, he (Michael) might. But until some more credible source reports on this story, I'm quite comfortable with ignoring it.
And suspicion is reinforced by their (The Verge) obvious attempt to discredit the messenger by noting (Michael also believes that Trump has been singled out by God to be president of the United States). And that attempt to ridicule is totally unnecessary.
That's not The Verge. That's Michael's own tweet, per TFS. Michael is discrediting himself. The Verge is just reporting what he has done.
If anybody who was part of this election cycle needs to earn trust back, it's Trump. I'm not saying others don't have work to do (mainstream media and DNC, I'm looking at you) but Trump was the worst offender when it came to sewing mistrust.
He ran the most vicious, invective-filled, fact-challenged, divisive campaign in modern history. He kept changing positions, ducking questions ("Mr Trump, are you going to do X?" "We're going to do a lot of things.") resorting to ad hominem, and attacking the media -- the only institution with the resources and traditions to fact-check him.
And then on election night, he tried to make nice. "Now it’s time for America to bind the wounds of division... I say it is time for us to come together as one united people." Well good luck, Mr. Trump. I can't say that your ability to do that is in evidence.
Walking on a sidewalk fitted with these kinetic tiles would feel somewhat similar to walking up a slight incline. The extra expended energy would be modest, but real.
I bet you're a loser in real life. Don't forget the house and senate going red which makes an even broader base of conservative support. When the people who were afraid to back him in 2016 vote in 2020 his margins will be better.
A few things to keep in mind...
First, the historical pattern has been that the President's party loses seats in midterm elections. So, the house and senate may not stay red in 2018.
Second, majorities of voters disliked both Clinton and Trump. That means there were many people who did not like Trump but voted for him anyway, largely as a protest against the status quo. In four years, he will be the status quo, so he'll have to run defensively. It's not clear that the same protest-voters who held their noses when they voted for him this time will do so again.
Next time, drop the ad hominem and wishful thinking, and go for some logic.
pollutant -- A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.
From The American Heritage Science Dictionary. Emphasis above is mine.
I have no need to explain anything. None of your claims about Clinton had anything to do with my argument about these two individuals being punished for breaking the law, not for "opposing the party-in-power's narrative."
You, on the other hand, have a great deal of explaining to do. You make a number of unsubstantiated claims about Clinton with no evidence to back them up. It is your job, not mine, to provide evidence. But for what it's worth, I do know that the claim about Clinton paying agitators to attend Trump rallies has been debunked as a fake-news story. I suspect your other claims are just as bogus.
Little love between Clintons and Obamas. Obama's campaigned for Clinton, but likely only to try and preserve their legacy, and perhaps for Michelle's political aspirations.
Michelle's political aspirations? According to current evidence, she has none.
The bad part is that there is news that they are now grooming Chelsea to run for office
I would not be surprised if there were evidence of that, but kindly provide some.
I am aware that she has a PhD in International Relations and she is working at the Clinton Global Initiative. That might be a good background for a post in foreign affairs, but I'd have to see more domestic affairs on her résumé before I believed she was going to run for office.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously. Did you read the article?
This article says that it's the hottest in 20 years.
Do you understand how patently *meaningless* that is?
We're in the middle of El Niño right now. Take that away and it's the hottest in 20 years. That's it. TWENTY.
Did you read the article? Apparently not:
2016 will very likely be the hottest year on record and a new high for the third year in a row, according to the UN. It means 16 of the 17 hottest years on record will have been this century.
You mean like refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding, because you find homosexuality morally abhorrent?
Lesbians are a protected class. People who bake cakes are not.
Well, hang on. Google/Wikipedia says sexual orientation is protected under employment laws, per the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. As for other areas, there are lawsuits in the works. Such as this one going to the Washington State Supreme Court today.
You mean like refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding, because you find homosexuality morally abhorrent?
Lesbians are a protected class. People who bake cakes are not.
Tiles could be constructed that take energy from footsteps while *also* making it easier to walk and also being easier on your foot and joints.
No, because Second Law of Thermodynamics. Anything that takes energy from your body will cause work to be done by your foot and joints. If it becomes "easier" for your foot and joints, then you have recovered the energy that your foot and joints conveyed into the mechanical system.
Gaah, sorry. I meant the First law. You can't get more energy out of the system than you put into it. Getting energy from your walking and making it easier for you to walk would do that.
You have a point about springiness of the tiles vs. walking uphill (sloppiness on my part) but the snarky poster is not correct. Conservation of energy is relevant here, and always.
Tiles could be constructed that take energy from footsteps while *also* making it easier to walk and also being easier on your foot and joints.
No, because Second Law of Thermodynamics. Anything that takes energy from your body will cause work to be done by your foot and joints. If it becomes "easier" for your foot and joints, then you have recovered the energy that your foot and joints conveyed into the mechanical system.
This is because some of the energy that would be dissipated into the foot and joints could instead be captured as electrical and potential energy. The ground would then feel springy, which could help you walk (although from personal experience, this works best for running).
If that energy is recovered with this springiness so as to "help you walk" then it is not captured by the energy-harvesting tiles.
The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. -- Sir Arthur Eddingon
+1 funny for you and the GP. Thanks for the improvement!
"Each footstep can create 4 to 8 watts"
No... Fucking... Chance...
You'd be surprised.
Let's assume a person with a mass of 80 kg sinks 0.5 cm into one of the tiles every 0.5 s. Then the energy conveyed to the tile is mgh = 80 kg * 9.8 m/s^2 * 0.005 m = 3.92 kg*m/s^2 = about 4 joules. At a walking pace of 1/0.5s, that corresponds to about 4/0.5 = 8 watts. Allowing for inefficiencies up to 50%, you get the 4 to 8 watt figure in TFA.
Funny, we have no e-mails, no proof of such CNN/GOP communications.
Not really. It was Wikileaks that released the CNN/DNC e-mails. Given the obvious bias Wikileaks has shown to the RNC, I'm not holding my breath to see any CNN/GOP e-mails from them.
I mean, if it was done on both sides - then why did CNN fire Donna Brazile as a contributor?
Apples and oranges.
What was "done" by CNN was communication with both parties to prepare questions for debates and interviews. As CNN said, it was "completely unremarkable."
Donna Brazile, on the other hand, leaked debate questions to her side (the Democrats.) And she quite brazenly said she would do it again. CNN was right to fire her as a contributor, because she abused her position intolerably.
From the very article you linked:
CNN said the report was "unremarkable" and that the network regularly communicates with both Republicans and Democrats when preparing for interviews.
"This is completely unremarkable," a CNN spokeswoman told the Washington Examiner. "We have similar communications with Republicans. When preparing for interviews we are regularly sent suggestions from rival campaigns and political parties, both solicited and unsolicited. Casting a wide net to ensure a tough and fair interview isn't just common media practice, it's smart."
All votes are counted, absentee or not. Previous posters provided these useful links:
http://help.vote.org/article/8...
https://www.fvap.gov/vao/vag/a...
Your link is run by Alex Jones, an alt-right radio host and conspiracy theorist. Per the wikipedia article:
Jones has been the center of many controversies, including his statements about gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. He has accused the U.S. government of being involved in the Oklahoma City bombing, the September 11 attacks and the filming of fake Moon landings to hide NASA's secret technology. He says that government and big business have colluded to create a New World Order through "manufactured economic crises, sophisticated surveillance tech and--above all--inside-job terror attacks that fuel exploitable hysteria".
Forgive me if I don't take him too seriously.
From the summary:
which argues that Clinton might win the number of votes "counted" but will not win the number of votes "cast" because of ignored Republican absentee ballots.
Did you actually look at the website where this came from? It doesn't exactly project an aura of credibility.
If it really works that way (and I could not find information to prove or disprove that theory), they might have a point.
Yes indeed, he (Michael) might. But until some more credible source reports on this story, I'm quite comfortable with ignoring it.
And suspicion is reinforced by their (The Verge) obvious attempt to discredit the messenger by noting (Michael also believes that Trump has been singled out by God to be president of the United States). And that attempt to ridicule is totally unnecessary.
That's not The Verge. That's Michael's own tweet, per TFS. Michael is discrediting himself. The Verge is just reporting what he has done.
If anybody who was part of this election cycle needs to earn trust back, it's Trump. I'm not saying others don't have work to do (mainstream media and DNC, I'm looking at you) but Trump was the worst offender when it came to sewing mistrust.
He ran the most vicious, invective-filled, fact-challenged, divisive campaign in modern history. He kept changing positions, ducking questions ("Mr Trump, are you going to do X?" "We're going to do a lot of things.") resorting to ad hominem, and attacking the media -- the only institution with the resources and traditions to fact-check him.
And then on election night, he tried to make nice. "Now it’s time for America to bind the wounds of division ... I say it is time for us to come together as one united people." Well good luck, Mr. Trump. I can't say that your ability to do that is in evidence.
I am a physicist, and the OP has a valid point.
Walking on a sidewalk fitted with these kinetic tiles would feel somewhat similar to walking up a slight incline. The extra expended energy would be modest, but real.
I bet you're a loser in real life. Don't forget the house and senate going red which makes an even broader base of conservative support. When the people who were afraid to back him in 2016 vote in 2020 his margins will be better.
A few things to keep in mind...
First, the historical pattern has been that the President's party loses seats in midterm elections. So, the house and senate may not stay red in 2018.
Second, majorities of voters disliked both Clinton and Trump. That means there were many people who did not like Trump but voted for him anyway, largely as a protest against the status quo. In four years, he will be the status quo, so he'll have to run defensively. It's not clear that the same protest-voters who held their noses when they voted for him this time will do so again.
Next time, drop the ad hominem and wishful thinking, and go for some logic.
pollutant -- A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.
From The American Heritage Science Dictionary. Emphasis above is mine.
I have no need to explain anything. None of your claims about Clinton had anything to do with my argument about these two individuals being punished for breaking the law, not for "opposing the party-in-power's narrative."
You, on the other hand, have a great deal of explaining to do. You make a number of unsubstantiated claims about Clinton with no evidence to back them up. It is your job, not mine, to provide evidence. But for what it's worth, I do know that the claim about Clinton paying agitators to attend Trump rallies has been debunked as a fake-news story. I suspect your other claims are just as bogus.
Little love between Clintons and Obamas. Obama's campaigned for Clinton, but likely only to try and preserve their legacy, and perhaps for Michelle's political aspirations.
Michelle's political aspirations? According to current evidence, she has none.
It does more than seek to imprison, it does imprison people for opposing the party-in-power's narrative. Mark Basseley Youssef and Dinesh D'Sousa.
Neither of these individuals was imprisoned for "opposing the party-in-power's narrative." It was for violating laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This is just meaningless, self-serving posturing on WikiLeaks' part.
Elon Moschus genießt Mann Esel.
I'm not sure that Elon Musk translates his last name when dealing with Germans.
The phrase genießt Mann Esel suggests he does, uh, something else when he deals with Germans.
What does this have to do with my flatulence?
Nothing. You're not divine.
In Japanese Teslas, the term they use, translated back to English, is "Divine Wind".
Unicorn farts?
[*ducks*]
The bad part is that there is news that they are now grooming Chelsea to run for office
I would not be surprised if there were evidence of that, but kindly provide some.
I am aware that she has a PhD in International Relations and she is working at the Clinton Global Initiative. That might be a good background for a post in foreign affairs, but I'd have to see more domestic affairs on her résumé before I believed she was going to run for office.
and Obama's wife is acting all political, too.
Perhaps, but would she run for office? Most likely not.
You do know they're easily verifiable, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Romney: 60.9M votes
Obama: 65.9M votes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Trump: 59.7M votes
Clinton: 59.9M votes
So it was 7M fewer for Clinton instead of 10M. The point is still exactly the same.
You made insightful points in both of your posts, but check your math: it's 6M, not 7M or 10M.