Don't forget that they can also treat them nearly as slave labor, as an H1B visa holder cannot change jobs without a major hassle, and cannot seek any additional employment. If they quit or are fired, the visa is terminated and they have scant time to leave the country.
Which did you get? I'd like to be able to get an Aeron myself, but the costs are still just too high, so I'm interested in a less-expensive one if it works nearly as well.
We've already been offered certain QoS guarantees for privately routed networks. You'd have to separate QoS for private from QoS for public in any such regulation.
The renewed European interest in diesel (and especially the interest in biodiesel) has resulted in the planned destruction of more than 25 million acres of rainforest in Indonesia, Malaysia, and other regional nations. No matter which way you go, there seem to be extremely undesirable consequences.
It's not a combat maneuver, just a demonstration of power, such as a climb to 12,000m from a standing start in about 55 seconds, although in a somewhat lightened aircraft. However, for many years, it could out-climb any other jet-powered craft in the skies, and it still can outdo most of them. Not bad for a 30-year-old design.
It's also extremely brittle. I have a little bit that an aerogel manufacturing company sent to me after a polite request based on curiosity. It was just an irregular scrap piece from the machineroom floor, about an inch thick, two inches wide, and four inches long, and the gentleman was kind enough to mail it to me free of charge (I offered to pay for it). Within two minutes of taking it out of the plastic case, it had become two pieces, and in the years since has become about seven pieces.
The MSDS enclosed with it said that it had no known toxic effects, so a friend ate a small piece, just a few millimeters on a side, before I could stop him. It didn't hurt him, but it left his mouth feeling weird. He is a bit of an eccentric, though.
However, fossil fuels are only 50% of US electric generation
I happen to be looking in on this for something on another board, and I have some differing information.
In 2004, about 71% of the power generated came from coal; petroleum; natural or other gases (read: methane for the former, and butane, propane, and similar for the latter); and wood. About 20% came from nuclear, 7% from hydroelectric, and 2% from other renewables.
Whether or not a president signs it is immaterial aside from symbolism. President Clinton signed onto the protocol, but never submitted it to the Senate for ratification because of the prior overwhelming vote against it that would have been an embarrassing defeat for his administration.
No, it's not, nor will it be for another 10-20 years, if then. China doesn't have much of a blue-water navy, has virtually no amphibious capabilities, most of its aircraft are copied from models designed by the Soviets in the mid- to late-1960s, and their armor is largely that which we waltzed through in Iraq 15 years ago. Their nuclear deterrent is largely tactical, with a few dozen strategic warheads thrown in for good measure.
Powerful military? Yes, on a regional level. Russia, Britain, and probably France outrank it in capability, though. At best, I would call it "better than 1990 Iraq."
Modafinil isn't a stimulant in the same class as that of amphetamines. Amphetamines have all kinds of side effects, whereas modafinil's primary effect is simply to make sleep a choice, hence why it's used to treat narcolepsy. Most users report few to no side effects at all.
This is going to become a bigger question as pharmaceuticals evolve and become lifestyle issues. Would you take a pill that gives you eidetic memory, giving you instant recall of most information? What about one that boosts your spatial awareness, perhaps improving your safety as a driver?
These are questions that we as a society will have to face soon, if we're not already facing them now -- as I may be.
Modafinil isn't supposed to boost anything. Modafinil's main effect is to allow those taking it -- originally narcoleptics but I seem to recall reading that there is more off-label use now -- to choose when to sleep. They can lay down, relax, and go to sleep, and when the alarm goes off, they can wake and not be especially sleepy, similar to the effects that you noted.
Boredom is a distinct possibility, and one I hadn't considered. Others in this thread have mentioned that physical fitness may be required to keep one healthy -- but if you're awake for 48 hours at a time, a couple of trips to the gym isn't out of the question, is it? Perhaps laying down to sleep for a couple of hours each day would help with the boredom, and also provide my body with physical rest time.
It's a serious question. I ask myself if it's worth trying for a month or so, then evaluating at the end of those four or five weeks. Part of me wants to do it in an attempt to get ahead, and part is wary of side-effects or -- worse -- getting called in by someone in the corporate ethics department. Even if I do decide to try it, there's the point of getting access to a month's supply of it, and since I'm at a new doctor, I don't have any way of gauging whether I'd be able to get a supervised program, or if I'd just get lectured for even bringing it up.
An attorney who gets fired moves on to the next case (or law firm). An attorney who gets disbarred finds another line of work. There's a significant difference.
Now they're moving on to modafinil (aka Provigil). In tests, they can stay up for several days at a time without fatigue, jitters, headaches, nausea, or loss of alertness or attention span. At the end of the test, 10-12 hours of shut-eye seems to reset their sleep clocks, and they move on, largely without any apparent side effects.
So now I wonder about it, even though I shy away from taking most pills aside from the occasional Advil or Rolaids. I have my day job, which is getting a little tougher because aside from training on a sudden influx of new technologies, I also have to help make up for the quarter of our team that went elsewhere. I have some side work that I do for extra money. I'd like to get back to learning C/C++, and pick up Perl as well. I also want to go for Cisco and Linux certifications, and come this fall I'd like to go back to school and get back on the path to my degree. Being able to slice out even half of the nights that I currently use for sleeping would be a tremendous assistance.
But is it fair? If I'm able to use this time to ramp up like that, will it force others to do so as well? Is it fair to my colleagues if I'm able to do half of their jobs (time permitting)? If I'm awake 24 hours at a stretch, and don't mind putting in an extra four hours since I have eight more than usual, am I putting their jobs at risk? And what happens to me when the next person comes along who is not only taking modafinil, but also a memory booster?
With this case, it might be better to read the court's opinion (PDF warning), see how they came to their decision, and then decide whether you agree with it.
If, as they say, it can be completed with far fewer messy components, then it is more likely to be approved by a planning council. If that is the case, then there would be more factories built, increasing supply to better meet demand, and reducing the cost of the metal on the spot market accordingly.
Is it 20% more uptime? Or is it 20% less downtime? There's a very, very big difference there -- two months of downtime is pretty severe, and if you have that, you have some serious problems. From the reverse perspective, three nines of uptime allows for nearly nine hours of downtime per year. If that downtime is reduced by 20%, that's nice, but not really noticeable for most users.
Recon by satellite is not always practical, as the orbits of many satellites are known and avoided by those with a decent high-tech radar or access to a country with such systems. In other cases, objects are too small to identify clearly. Sometimes boots on the ground are the only way to find out the exact identities of people working at a facility.
I'm not sure that the political will is lacking. There is a serious confrontation coming between the two houses of Congress, and if that passes then between Congress and the White House. Depending on whom you ask, there is a strong minority to an overwhelming majority of Americans that want a strong border presence which includes physical barriers that can't be easily climbed, thousands more Border Patrol agents, and real enforcement of the immigration laws. The issue of a path to citizenship is all over the place, and I don't thing anyone can really pin down Americans' feelings on the issue.
The House is talking tough -- much moreso than they have in the past on any issue that I can recall. The House Republicans largely are telling the Senate and the president that they're going for an enforcement measure, and little or nothing else. Whether they back down in conference is a question mark, but since even many Democrats are getting the picture that the safety of their seats largely rests on their position on immigration, there is a good chance that either nothing will be passed, or there will be a very stern measure much closer to the House version that will be signed into law or passed over the president's veto (not that I think he has the guts to veto the bill; even if it's just enforcement, he'll probably call it a good starting point in the process and defer amnesty until next year).
I don't think too many people would be happy about constantly being followed around by a camera, no matter how public, recording every action of theirs
There are anti-stalking laws that cover this for most people. Celebrities are an exception to this rule due to their choice of making themselves more public, and paparazzi are protected to some degree by freedom of the press.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget that they can also treat them nearly as slave labor, as an H1B visa holder cannot change jobs without a major hassle, and cannot seek any additional employment. If they quit or are fired, the visa is terminated and they have scant time to leave the country.
Which did you get? I'd like to be able to get an Aeron myself, but the costs are still just too high, so I'm interested in a less-expensive one if it works nearly as well.
No, but SBC/AT&T is. They provide the connectivity between our sites over private links.
Clear-cutting of rainforest to allow the development of plantations for the production of palm oil, which is then turned to biodiesel.
We've already been offered certain QoS guarantees for privately routed networks. You'd have to separate QoS for private from QoS for public in any such regulation.
BTW...
The renewed European interest in diesel (and especially the interest in biodiesel) has resulted in the planned destruction of more than 25 million acres of rainforest in Indonesia, Malaysia, and other regional nations. No matter which way you go, there seem to be extremely undesirable consequences.
So are you only turned on by pr0n soundtracks?
Being very generous, we can assume 3145mpg is accurate to +-0.5mpg, it's probably neared +-2.5mpg.
I travel at 120km/h on the motorway. That's 75mph, not 74.564543mph.
It's been a few years since chem class, but isn't the first example one of accuracy, as you claim, and the second example one of precision?
...DNA.
Will we be able to check her blood cell count with this?
It's not a combat maneuver, just a demonstration of power, such as a climb to 12,000m from a standing start in about 55 seconds, although in a somewhat lightened aircraft. However, for many years, it could out-climb any other jet-powered craft in the skies, and it still can outdo most of them. Not bad for a 30-year-old design.
The F-15 was the first to be able to do this (as exhibited by its sustained vertical climbing ability) but it gulps fuel when it does so.
It's also extremely brittle. I have a little bit that an aerogel manufacturing company sent to me after a polite request based on curiosity. It was just an irregular scrap piece from the machineroom floor, about an inch thick, two inches wide, and four inches long, and the gentleman was kind enough to mail it to me free of charge (I offered to pay for it). Within two minutes of taking it out of the plastic case, it had become two pieces, and in the years since has become about seven pieces.
The MSDS enclosed with it said that it had no known toxic effects, so a friend ate a small piece, just a few millimeters on a side, before I could stop him. It didn't hurt him, but it left his mouth feeling weird. He is a bit of an eccentric, though.
However, fossil fuels are only 50% of US electric generation
I happen to be looking in on this for something on another board, and I have some differing information.
In 2004, about 71% of the power generated came from coal; petroleum; natural or other gases (read: methane for the former, and butane, propane, and similar for the latter); and wood. About 20% came from nuclear, 7% from hydroelectric, and 2% from other renewables.
Source: Energy Information Administration
This is why bush have not signed in kyoto treaty.
Whether or not a president signs it is immaterial aside from symbolism. President Clinton signed onto the protocol, but never submitted it to the Senate for ratification because of the prior overwhelming vote against it that would have been an embarrassing defeat for his administration.
China's right up there.
No, it's not, nor will it be for another 10-20 years, if then. China doesn't have much of a blue-water navy, has virtually no amphibious capabilities, most of its aircraft are copied from models designed by the Soviets in the mid- to late-1960s, and their armor is largely that which we waltzed through in Iraq 15 years ago. Their nuclear deterrent is largely tactical, with a few dozen strategic warheads thrown in for good measure.
Powerful military? Yes, on a regional level. Russia, Britain, and probably France outrank it in capability, though. At best, I would call it "better than 1990 Iraq."
Modafinil isn't a stimulant in the same class as that of amphetamines. Amphetamines have all kinds of side effects, whereas modafinil's primary effect is simply to make sleep a choice, hence why it's used to treat narcolepsy. Most users report few to no side effects at all.
This is going to become a bigger question as pharmaceuticals evolve and become lifestyle issues. Would you take a pill that gives you eidetic memory, giving you instant recall of most information? What about one that boosts your spatial awareness, perhaps improving your safety as a driver?
These are questions that we as a society will have to face soon, if we're not already facing them now -- as I may be.
Modafinil isn't supposed to boost anything. Modafinil's main effect is to allow those taking it -- originally narcoleptics but I seem to recall reading that there is more off-label use now -- to choose when to sleep. They can lay down, relax, and go to sleep, and when the alarm goes off, they can wake and not be especially sleepy, similar to the effects that you noted.
Boredom is a distinct possibility, and one I hadn't considered. Others in this thread have mentioned that physical fitness may be required to keep one healthy -- but if you're awake for 48 hours at a time, a couple of trips to the gym isn't out of the question, is it? Perhaps laying down to sleep for a couple of hours each day would help with the boredom, and also provide my body with physical rest time.
It's a serious question. I ask myself if it's worth trying for a month or so, then evaluating at the end of those four or five weeks. Part of me wants to do it in an attempt to get ahead, and part is wary of side-effects or -- worse -- getting called in by someone in the corporate ethics department. Even if I do decide to try it, there's the point of getting access to a month's supply of it, and since I'm at a new doctor, I don't have any way of gauging whether I'd be able to get a supervised program, or if I'd just get lectured for even bringing it up.
An attorney who gets fired moves on to the next case (or law firm). An attorney who gets disbarred finds another line of work. There's a significant difference.
Now they're moving on to modafinil (aka Provigil). In tests, they can stay up for several days at a time without fatigue, jitters, headaches, nausea, or loss of alertness or attention span. At the end of the test, 10-12 hours of shut-eye seems to reset their sleep clocks, and they move on, largely without any apparent side effects.
So now I wonder about it, even though I shy away from taking most pills aside from the occasional Advil or Rolaids. I have my day job, which is getting a little tougher because aside from training on a sudden influx of new technologies, I also have to help make up for the quarter of our team that went elsewhere. I have some side work that I do for extra money. I'd like to get back to learning C/C++, and pick up Perl as well. I also want to go for Cisco and Linux certifications, and come this fall I'd like to go back to school and get back on the path to my degree. Being able to slice out even half of the nights that I currently use for sleeping would be a tremendous assistance.
But is it fair? If I'm able to use this time to ramp up like that, will it force others to do so as well? Is it fair to my colleagues if I'm able to do half of their jobs (time permitting)? If I'm awake 24 hours at a stretch, and don't mind putting in an extra four hours since I have eight more than usual, am I putting their jobs at risk? And what happens to me when the next person comes along who is not only taking modafinil, but also a memory booster?
With this case, it might be better to read the court's opinion (PDF warning), see how they came to their decision, and then decide whether you agree with it.
If, as they say, it can be completed with far fewer messy components, then it is more likely to be approved by a planning council. If that is the case, then there would be more factories built, increasing supply to better meet demand, and reducing the cost of the metal on the spot market accordingly.
Is it 20% more uptime? Or is it 20% less downtime? There's a very, very big difference there -- two months of downtime is pretty severe, and if you have that, you have some serious problems. From the reverse perspective, three nines of uptime allows for nearly nine hours of downtime per year. If that downtime is reduced by 20%, that's nice, but not really noticeable for most users.
Recon by satellite is not always practical, as the orbits of many satellites are known and avoided by those with a decent high-tech radar or access to a country with such systems. In other cases, objects are too small to identify clearly. Sometimes boots on the ground are the only way to find out the exact identities of people working at a facility.
I'm not sure that the political will is lacking. There is a serious confrontation coming between the two houses of Congress, and if that passes then between Congress and the White House. Depending on whom you ask, there is a strong minority to an overwhelming majority of Americans that want a strong border presence which includes physical barriers that can't be easily climbed, thousands more Border Patrol agents, and real enforcement of the immigration laws. The issue of a path to citizenship is all over the place, and I don't thing anyone can really pin down Americans' feelings on the issue.
The House is talking tough -- much moreso than they have in the past on any issue that I can recall. The House Republicans largely are telling the Senate and the president that they're going for an enforcement measure, and little or nothing else. Whether they back down in conference is a question mark, but since even many Democrats are getting the picture that the safety of their seats largely rests on their position on immigration, there is a good chance that either nothing will be passed, or there will be a very stern measure much closer to the House version that will be signed into law or passed over the president's veto (not that I think he has the guts to veto the bill; even if it's just enforcement, he'll probably call it a good starting point in the process and defer amnesty until next year).
I don't think too many people would be happy about constantly being followed around by a camera, no matter how public, recording every action of theirs
There are anti-stalking laws that cover this for most people. Celebrities are an exception to this rule due to their choice of making themselves more public, and paparazzi are protected to some degree by freedom of the press.