That may be true, but the federal government doesn't see it that way. They all but banned one for private ownership and the other is available for immediate purchase without registration.
I think the useless term you're looking for is "assault weapon", which is essentially just a scary looking semi-auto rifle. And I'd call the Ruger mini 14 a semi-auto varmint/target rifle. At 5.56mm it's not really powerful enough for larger game, so I wouldn't consider it to be a hunting rifle.
An Assault Rifle has a large capacity magazine (often >25 rounds) and an automatic and/or burst fire mode. Hunting rifles are either bolt action or semi-auto and usually have smaller magazine capacities (1-5) and are often chambered for larger calibers.
This is a problem, not a good thing. Wind and solar production should have been throttled to prevent dumping more power on the grid than demanded rather than paying companies to burn off the energy.
The only way renewables work is if the power is used locally to reduce/level demand or as preferred peaking generation (with sufficient idle nat-gas backups to cover the worst peak). The only time prices should go negative is in the rare occasion that the demand dips below the base (nuclear/hydro/coal) generation. And in that case, wind and solar shouldn't be putting any power into the grid.
Banning trucks might be a difficult task, but we could drastically reduce the average vehicle weight and reduce commuter fuel consumption/emissions to 1/3 of what it is today if everyone drove these to work: Elio
~1300lbs, 84/49 hwy/city mpg, fully enclosed, A/C, heat and seats two. The best part is that they will only cost $6800. That's low enough that it will pay for itself in just fuel savings so you can buy one to go alongside your family vehicle.
Why should tobacco or any form of cigarette be legal at all? There are no redeeming benefits of smoking.
You're asking the wrong question. You should be asking why it should be illegal. And if you find reasons that it should, any laws written should try to address those aspects with minimal interference in the personal choices of individuals.
Banning things just because you don't like them is not okay.
There is only one scenario that could take it away from Trump at this point, something that makes Trump unelectable, like a criminal charge or some sort of very dirty scandal
I don't know about that, neither of those have stopped Hillary.
And your unsubstantiated statements of opinion carry more weight?
As far as the irreplaceableness of big cities like New York is concerned, it really does seem impossible for the people and businesses on the coasts to move to another suitable location nearby sometime in the next 50-100 years. What an onerous burden it is to not rebuild on the same spot when your building reaches the end of its design life. Instead let's place as much of the cost as possible on those that were prudent enough to avoid low lying areas that are prone to storm damage. I'm sure they won't mind paying their "fair share" to help shore up infrastructure they knew better than to build in the first place.
No it won't. Humans are insanely adaptable and our species would survive even if all of the predicted events over the next hundred years suddenly hit us tomorrow. There are enough populated areas away from coasts to be safe from any level of sea level rise and away from hurricanes and there's enough stored water in reservoirs and sufficient filtration methods to survive prolonged droughts and water table contamination.
The apocalyptic rhetoric surrounding climate change is pure BS. Sure there is some risk in having to adapt to a changing climate and we may be causing it to change somewhat faster, but we need to weigh the costs of acting against the added costs to adapt and that analysis is what is glaringly absent from the discussion. Does it really make sense to drive up the costs of energy in an attempt to avoid or delay these changes? I honestly don't know and I think it is essentially impossible to figure out with all of the politically motivated bullshit being spewed on both sides.
I'm not a gamer, but from what I've heard most modern CPUs are capable of handling just about any game out there. Even laptops come with multi-core processors and tens of GBs of RAM these days. The only limitation I see on the laptop format would be disk space. Maybe attaching a fast external storage array to the dock would be a useful add-on so you can keep the cost of the on-board SSD down?
Actually, I think an external GPU and power source is a fairly elegant setup. Rather than limiting the GPU capabilities by trying to cram the cards into the laptop format, they can use full desktop GPUs with the associated power supplies and just plug in where you need that power. Then you could have something that performs both tasks of being a very nicely portable laptop and a gaming rig without unnecessary duplication of CPU and RAM or having to manage two separate machines.
Except neither vehicle was making a lane change. It was a single lane with enough width (normally) to accommodate two vehicles for the purposes of facilitating right turns. In this case, the lane was unexpectedly narrowed by sand bags, so two vehicles attempted to share the lane briefly when there was insufficient space. Fault in these cases is difficult to determine. Technically, since it is still considered a single lane, the bus should not have the right of way. Although, it's likely that the bus driver could not see the obstruction in front of the google car and didn't expect it to move into his path.
There is, however, an argument that a good human driver would have recognized the difference in danger and avoided the incident by just driving over the sand bags. The google vehicle only knew that "something" was in the way and is likely programmed to avoid all round shaped ground obstacles just in case they are a small child or animal.
Compared to the total solar irradiance it has to be small or we'd be dead already. Although, it probably is large in comparison to our electrical power generation capacity.
Basically what they're doing is optimizing the electric/gas switching for specific routes to make best use of the battery (e.g. plan so that it doesn't run out of juice halfway up a hill). In order to make that generally applicable, each car would have to constantly track location and other telemetry and send it back to a central database to build a map of all common routes. Alternatively, it could also be used as a self contained system that would learn the best strategy for your normal commute, but then it would have no benefit on roads you haven't driven before.
But tracking isn't going to go away. Your computer is initiating a conversation with someone else's computer, and there's only one thing you can do to prevent someone else's computer from remembering that it happened: have there be nothing to remember, because nothing happened. i.e. don't request the ad.
My computer initiated a conversation with Site A. This does not mean that Site A should conference in Ad Network B to advertise at me without even notifying me of what they're doing. If Site A wants to get ad revenue, they can tell me directly about the advertised product, but clearly state that it's a paid ad and don't sell my personal information to third parties.
What would you think of someone who sold your contact info to telemarketers as soon as you called him or gave him your number?
Binge on allows T-Mobile to have a say in who wins the video streaming market
How so? There are simple rules for inclusion in the program which are applied equally to all and not inherently unfair as far as I can tell.
Please let me know when there are any services that have been excluded after requesting access and I'll listen. Until that happens, the perception of possible abuse is insufficient to prove this is anything other than an effort by T-Mobile to better serve their customers.
An epoxy based coating on the leading edge of a helicopter rotor will be gone almost instantly. The blades are basically sand blasted on every takeoff and landing from the dirt and sand that gets kicked up by the rotors. That's why they have that metallic cap.
Also, the reason they don't heat the entire rotor blade now is because the electrical power requirements would be excessively high and it isn't necessary. The metallic ribbon heating elements they currently use are such a small contributor to the overall weight that it's almost negligible. The rest is thermal mass and insulation necessary to evenly distribute the energy across the anti-iced section of the blade and to protect the composite blade structure from the heat. Maybe, due to reduced thickness and uniform heat output, this new coating could be applied closer to the back side of the LE abrasion shield and be more resistant to foreign object damage being a continuous sheet, but I don't expect it to revolutionize the industry. It certainly won't grossly increase the range of application of aircraft anti-ice systems. Outside of rotors/propellers, aircraft generally use engine bleed air for anti-icing since that is readily available and the electric power needs to replace those systems would require much larger and heavier generators.
Does my honneywell programmable thermostat learn that my radiators take x number of hours to get 4 degrees when it's y tempursture outside, or x+1 hours when it's y-5 outside?
Yes, it can, depending on the model. The basic (and inexpensive) programmable ones don't, but even the moderate level 7 day programmable ones do. I think they call it "smart response". By the way, they also have wifi connected thermostats that can be managed remotely through the internet or your phone.
Slashdot Mirror
That's as much a choice as someone coming up and saying "would you like to get hit with a hammer or a baseball bat?"
Both "choices" cause harm and there should be an obligation for the perpetrator of such a crime to make the victim whole.
That may be true, but the federal government doesn't see it that way. They all but banned one for private ownership and the other is available for immediate purchase without registration.
I think the useless term you're looking for is "assault weapon", which is essentially just a scary looking semi-auto rifle. And I'd call the Ruger mini 14 a semi-auto varmint/target rifle. At 5.56mm it's not really powerful enough for larger game, so I wouldn't consider it to be a hunting rifle.
An Assault Rifle has a large capacity magazine (often >25 rounds) and an automatic and/or burst fire mode. Hunting rifles are either bolt action or semi-auto and usually have smaller magazine capacities (1-5) and are often chambered for larger calibers.
Verizon waive overage charges!? Ha, that's a good one.
This is a problem, not a good thing. Wind and solar production should have been throttled to prevent dumping more power on the grid than demanded rather than paying companies to burn off the energy.
The only way renewables work is if the power is used locally to reduce/level demand or as preferred peaking generation (with sufficient idle nat-gas backups to cover the worst peak). The only time prices should go negative is in the rare occasion that the demand dips below the base (nuclear/hydro/coal) generation. And in that case, wind and solar shouldn't be putting any power into the grid.
Banning trucks might be a difficult task, but we could drastically reduce the average vehicle weight and reduce commuter fuel consumption/emissions to 1/3 of what it is today if everyone drove these to work: Elio
~1300lbs, 84/49 hwy/city mpg, fully enclosed, A/C, heat and seats two. The best part is that they will only cost $6800. That's low enough that it will pay for itself in just fuel savings so you can buy one to go alongside your family vehicle.
Why should tobacco or any form of cigarette be legal at all? There are no redeeming benefits of smoking.
You're asking the wrong question. You should be asking why it should be illegal. And if you find reasons that it should, any laws written should try to address those aspects with minimal interference in the personal choices of individuals.
Banning things just because you don't like them is not okay.
There is only one scenario that could take it away from Trump at this point, something that makes Trump unelectable, like a criminal charge or some sort of very dirty scandal
I don't know about that, neither of those have stopped Hillary.
Because the two dominant parties successfully lobbied for government handouts.
These days... Yeah, they probably do.
And your unsubstantiated statements of opinion carry more weight?
As far as the irreplaceableness of big cities like New York is concerned, it really does seem impossible for the people and businesses on the coasts to move to another suitable location nearby sometime in the next 50-100 years. What an onerous burden it is to not rebuild on the same spot when your building reaches the end of its design life. Instead let's place as much of the cost as possible on those that were prudent enough to avoid low lying areas that are prone to storm damage. I'm sure they won't mind paying their "fair share" to help shore up infrastructure they knew better than to build in the first place.
No it won't. Humans are insanely adaptable and our species would survive even if all of the predicted events over the next hundred years suddenly hit us tomorrow. There are enough populated areas away from coasts to be safe from any level of sea level rise and away from hurricanes and there's enough stored water in reservoirs and sufficient filtration methods to survive prolonged droughts and water table contamination.
The apocalyptic rhetoric surrounding climate change is pure BS. Sure there is some risk in having to adapt to a changing climate and we may be causing it to change somewhat faster, but we need to weigh the costs of acting against the added costs to adapt and that analysis is what is glaringly absent from the discussion. Does it really make sense to drive up the costs of energy in an attempt to avoid or delay these changes? I honestly don't know and I think it is essentially impossible to figure out with all of the politically motivated bullshit being spewed on both sides.
I'm not a gamer, but from what I've heard most modern CPUs are capable of handling just about any game out there. Even laptops come with multi-core processors and tens of GBs of RAM these days. The only limitation I see on the laptop format would be disk space. Maybe attaching a fast external storage array to the dock would be a useful add-on so you can keep the cost of the on-board SSD down?
Actually, I think an external GPU and power source is a fairly elegant setup. Rather than limiting the GPU capabilities by trying to cram the cards into the laptop format, they can use full desktop GPUs with the associated power supplies and just plug in where you need that power. Then you could have something that performs both tasks of being a very nicely portable laptop and a gaming rig without unnecessary duplication of CPU and RAM or having to manage two separate machines.
Except neither vehicle was making a lane change. It was a single lane with enough width (normally) to accommodate two vehicles for the purposes of facilitating right turns. In this case, the lane was unexpectedly narrowed by sand bags, so two vehicles attempted to share the lane briefly when there was insufficient space. Fault in these cases is difficult to determine. Technically, since it is still considered a single lane, the bus should not have the right of way. Although, it's likely that the bus driver could not see the obstruction in front of the google car and didn't expect it to move into his path.
There is, however, an argument that a good human driver would have recognized the difference in danger and avoided the incident by just driving over the sand bags. The google vehicle only knew that "something" was in the way and is likely programmed to avoid all round shaped ground obstacles just in case they are a small child or animal.
To that I ask "small in relation to what?"
Compared to the total solar irradiance it has to be small or we'd be dead already. Although, it probably is large in comparison to our electrical power generation capacity.
Basically what they're doing is optimizing the electric/gas switching for specific routes to make best use of the battery (e.g. plan so that it doesn't run out of juice halfway up a hill). In order to make that generally applicable, each car would have to constantly track location and other telemetry and send it back to a central database to build a map of all common routes. Alternatively, it could also be used as a self contained system that would learn the best strategy for your normal commute, but then it would have no benefit on roads you haven't driven before.
But tracking isn't going to go away. Your computer is initiating a conversation with someone else's computer, and there's only one thing you can do to prevent someone else's computer from remembering that it happened: have there be nothing to remember, because nothing happened. i.e. don't request the ad.
My computer initiated a conversation with Site A. This does not mean that Site A should conference in Ad Network B to advertise at me without even notifying me of what they're doing. If Site A wants to get ad revenue, they can tell me directly about the advertised product, but clearly state that it's a paid ad and don't sell my personal information to third parties.
What would you think of someone who sold your contact info to telemarketers as soon as you called him or gave him your number?
Binge on allows T-Mobile to have a say in who wins the video streaming market
How so? There are simple rules for inclusion in the program which are applied equally to all and not inherently unfair as far as I can tell.
Please let me know when there are any services that have been excluded after requesting access and I'll listen. Until that happens, the perception of possible abuse is insufficient to prove this is anything other than an effort by T-Mobile to better serve their customers.
That's essentially what the Model X is.
An epoxy based coating on the leading edge of a helicopter rotor will be gone almost instantly. The blades are basically sand blasted on every takeoff and landing from the dirt and sand that gets kicked up by the rotors. That's why they have that metallic cap.
Also, the reason they don't heat the entire rotor blade now is because the electrical power requirements would be excessively high and it isn't necessary. The metallic ribbon heating elements they currently use are such a small contributor to the overall weight that it's almost negligible. The rest is thermal mass and insulation necessary to evenly distribute the energy across the anti-iced section of the blade and to protect the composite blade structure from the heat. Maybe, due to reduced thickness and uniform heat output, this new coating could be applied closer to the back side of the LE abrasion shield and be more resistant to foreign object damage being a continuous sheet, but I don't expect it to revolutionize the industry. It certainly won't grossly increase the range of application of aircraft anti-ice systems. Outside of rotors/propellers, aircraft generally use engine bleed air for anti-icing since that is readily available and the electric power needs to replace those systems would require much larger and heavier generators.
True, except that fraction is likely in the range of 6/2 to 15/3.
Does my honneywell programmable thermostat learn that my radiators take x number of hours to get 4 degrees when it's y tempursture outside, or x+1 hours when it's y-5 outside?
Yes, it can, depending on the model. The basic (and inexpensive) programmable ones don't, but even the moderate level 7 day programmable ones do. I think they call it "smart response". By the way, they also have wifi connected thermostats that can be managed remotely through the internet or your phone.
Have you tried calling T-Mobile about it?