Your citation says that not all diamonds are tiny.
"Traditionally, experts have argued that diamonds in meteorites form when asteroids collide. The shock of the crash is enough to crush carbon into tiny diamonds.
The gems founds in fragments of the Almahata Sitta, however, are too large to have been created that way, says the paper. Instead, they are likely to have been formed inside a "planetesimal” — a celestial body not quite large enough to count as a planet, but far bigger than any asteroid."
Were the capacitors manufactured about ten years ago?;-)
You wouldn't use electrolytic capacitors in space because...
Years ago there were some bad production runs of capacitors that found there way into various electronic devices. Blaming the capacitors for hardware failures became a bit overused, a sort of joke, at the time.:-)
As I said earlier I've inherited and ported many a project that used the hybrid approach I discussed. Over the decades C++ has often been used in a "lightweight" manner with a very "C like" approach.
You need to understand whatever bit of C++ you are using to "enhance" C. Plus operator overloading doesn't require that you shift from a C design and philosophy approach. I used operator overloading in a decimal math library, its fairly K&R looking code. The user defined decimal number type doing what one would expect with mathematical operators.
There's nothing wrong with cutting costs and reducing pollution. These rounds aren't being made for killing people.
Actually they may kill people. By planting seeds and growing plants on a live fire training range they are potentially hiding unexploded ordinance. Making it harder to recognize and increasing the likelihood of accidental detonation.
Actually I've started projects and inherited projects that used the hybrid approach. The goal, back in the day, was to "enhance" C with a little bit of C++. The coding style and approach was still essentially C. The notion that using C++ requires a full blown OO approach and use of many advanced features is mistaken.
I'm well aware of this, but it doesn't change the fact that C++ is a different language with a fundamentally different philosophy. Adding features to a language is not some kind of neutral operation; it can affect users that have no intention of using those features.
The point you are missing is that you don't have to use most of those features, and sometimes you should not. If someone want to write a project in "C" they will probably use a C++ compiler and use a minor feature of C++ or two. Their resulting code being far closer to C design and philosophy than C++'s. People have been doing so since the 90s. So the lines are quite blurred and the original question poorly thought out.
Take for example asteroid mining, how long have we heard about that?
About as long as we've been hearing about rockets that land on their tail and self driving cars and handheld communications devices that connect to anyone.:-)
The popular is trivia because no one was trying for the popular. Had anyone cared they would have spent time and money very different, and the result would have been a very different popular from the one we have now. Hence the one we have is trivia, its a coincidental outcome not the desired outcome strived for and not even the "real" popular, with or without Californians. Of which I am one.
There needs to be a time limit for editing tweets. Five minutes is good. This keeps someone from going back and changing what they said long after they said it. There also needs to be a flag that tells people that the tweet was edited. This prevents modifying a tweet after people have already agreed with it, etc.
Don't allow likes, replies, forwarding, etc during the edit window.
Or cancel/delete any likes, replies, forwarding, etc when an edit occurs, basically deter editing. If the original content changes the feedback should be removed. Yes, this can be abused but it seems less troublesome than letting feedback persist after an edit. Maybe notify the replier and if they care they could check the edited original and restore their feedback if they still care too. This would let them call out someone who completely changed what they originally said.
This looks like a Research project, not an Infrastructure project. Its not intended to solve a problem today, its intended to better understand moving an idea from the laboratory to the real world in the future. In short its an experiment, investigating a day when some future much higher efficiency and much more durable technology might be incorporated into roads.
The SENATE was designed to give representation to states.
Both the Senate and the Electoral College were designed to do so. Both were part of the compromises to smaller states to get them to join the union in the first place.
"In The Federalist Papers, James Madison explained his views on the selection of the president and the Constitution. In Federalist No. 39, Madison argued the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the president would be elected by a mixture of the two modes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Plus as explained elsewhere the real problem is not the electoral college itself. The real problem is winner take all states.
While things were lopsided in many states we are still left with the interesting factoid that Trump won the popular among all non-Californians. Its an interesting bit of trivia, just like Hillary winning the overall popular is an interesting bit of trivia. Trivia because all sides spent their time and money for the electoral, not the popular.
You are equally at fault. You should have elected literally any other candidate in the Democratic primary.
Somehow, viable Democrats (Bernie is really an Independent) seem to have stayed out of the primary this year. Its really strange, there was no Democratic incumbent running for re-election. There should have been a wide selection of viable candidates like in 2008, as happens all the time in non-incumbent years. But somehow, no big names but Hillary showed up. Yes there was the token opponent who mostly agreed with Hillary and said she would be a good President; and there was the Independent Bernie who re-registered to run as a Democrat. How was there not a contested field like in 2008?
Yes, only in America can you win by 3 million votes and still somehow lose. Thanks, Electoral College!
Somehow? There is no mystery. She was not trying for the popular vote, both Hillary and Trump were allocating time and money for the electoral vote. If the popular vote were the goal they both would have allocated time and money very differently and that popular vote would have been very different. The current popular vote is a side effect, trivia.
Also its not the electoral college that is the problem. The Electoral College only has a small effect itself, a small bump due to the two electors every state gets that correspond to their Senators, the remaining number of electors corresponding to their House representation which is proportional to population. The real huge bump is due to the states going winner take all. That is a state problem, not a federal problem. Some states do proportional rather than winner take all. Two states?
The popular vote is trivia. Neither side was trying to win the popular vote. They spent their time and money to maximize the electoral. If the popular was the goal then they would have spent their time and money very different and we would have a very different popular vote as a result. Focusing on the popular vote is like focusing on the fact that the losing team in a football game moved the ball more yards. Interesting but neither team was trying for that.
Slashdot Mirror
Your citation says that not all diamonds are tiny.
"Traditionally, experts have argued that diamonds in meteorites form when asteroids collide. The shock of the crash is enough to crush carbon into tiny diamonds. The gems founds in fragments of the Almahata Sitta, however, are too large to have been created that way, says the paper. Instead, they are likely to have been formed inside a "planetesimal” — a celestial body not quite large enough to count as a planet, but far bigger than any asteroid."
A one carat diamond may be worth $10,000, but if there were suddenly a trillion of them ...
FWIW, there are diamonds in asteroids too.
I wonder how you're supposed to smelt it in space. Perhaps space air is flammable?
The space water is flammable after electrolysis. :-)
Were the capacitors manufactured about ten years ago? ;-)
You wouldn't use electrolytic capacitors in space because ...
Years ago there were some bad production runs of capacitors that found there way into various electronic devices. Blaming the capacitors for hardware failures became a bit overused, a sort of joke, at the time. :-)
Were the capacitors manufactured about ten years ago? ;-)
As I said earlier I've inherited and ported many a project that used the hybrid approach I discussed. Over the decades C++ has often been used in a "lightweight" manner with a very "C like" approach.
You need to understand whatever bit of C++ you are using to "enhance" C. Plus operator overloading doesn't require that you shift from a C design and philosophy approach. I used operator overloading in a decimal math library, its fairly K&R looking code. The user defined decimal number type doing what one would expect with mathematical operators.
Of course, plants don't grow unless humans specifically put them in the ground, which is fortunate for your point there.
Silly straw man, the point is that more is not always better. Such rounds would constitute a lot of additional seeding.
There's nothing wrong with cutting costs and reducing pollution. These rounds aren't being made for killing people.
Actually they may kill people. By planting seeds and growing plants on a live fire training range they are potentially hiding unexploded ordinance. Making it harder to recognize and increasing the likelihood of accidental detonation.
Actually I've started projects and inherited projects that used the hybrid approach. The goal, back in the day, was to "enhance" C with a little bit of C++. The coding style and approach was still essentially C. The notion that using C++ requires a full blown OO approach and use of many advanced features is mistaken.
I'm well aware of this, but it doesn't change the fact that C++ is a different language with a fundamentally different philosophy. Adding features to a language is not some kind of neutral operation; it can affect users that have no intention of using those features.
The point you are missing is that you don't have to use most of those features, and sometimes you should not. If someone want to write a project in "C" they will probably use a C++ compiler and use a minor feature of C++ or two. Their resulting code being far closer to C design and philosophy than C++'s. People have been doing so since the 90s. So the lines are quite blurred and the original question poorly thought out.
Take for example asteroid mining, how long have we heard about that?
About as long as we've been hearing about rockets that land on their tail and self driving cars and handheld communications devices that connect to anyone. :-)
"unique" is a binary term. Something is either unique or not unique. There are no "degrees" of uniqueness.
That is a somewhat unique perspective.
The popular is trivia because no one was trying for the popular. Had anyone cared they would have spent time and money very different, and the result would have been a very different popular from the one we have now. Hence the one we have is trivia, its a coincidental outcome not the desired outcome strived for and not even the "real" popular, with or without Californians. Of which I am one.
So, "Alien" or "The Thing"? What are your bets guys?
Assuming "Alien" is referring to a "xenomorph" we might want to add Borg to the list.
There needs to be a time limit for editing tweets. Five minutes is good. This keeps someone from going back and changing what they said long after they said it. There also needs to be a flag that tells people that the tweet was edited. This prevents modifying a tweet after people have already agreed with it, etc.
Don't allow likes, replies, forwarding, etc during the edit window.
Or cancel/delete any likes, replies, forwarding, etc when an edit occurs, basically deter editing. If the original content changes the feedback should be removed. Yes, this can be abused but it seems less troublesome than letting feedback persist after an edit. Maybe notify the replier and if they care they could check the edited original and restore their feedback if they still care too. This would let them call out someone who completely changed what they originally said.
This looks like a Research project, not an Infrastructure project. Its not intended to solve a problem today, its intended to better understand moving an idea from the laboratory to the real world in the future. In short its an experiment, investigating a day when some future much higher efficiency and much more durable technology might be incorporated into roads.
Obama was know to political junkies :-) but not the rank and file Democrats until the 2008 primary.
I guess I should have stuck with the term "viable" not "big name". 2008 obviously demonstrates a "big name" is not required.
The SENATE was designed to give representation to states.
Both the Senate and the Electoral College were designed to do so. Both were part of the compromises to smaller states to get them to join the union in the first place.
"In The Federalist Papers, James Madison explained his views on the selection of the president and the Constitution. In Federalist No. 39, Madison argued the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the president would be elected by a mixture of the two modes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Plus as explained elsewhere the real problem is not the electoral college itself. The real problem is winner take all states.
While things were lopsided in many states we are still left with the interesting factoid that Trump won the popular among all non-Californians. Its an interesting bit of trivia, just like Hillary winning the overall popular is an interesting bit of trivia. Trivia because all sides spent their time and money for the electoral, not the popular.
You are equally at fault. You should have elected literally any other candidate in the Democratic primary.
Somehow, viable Democrats (Bernie is really an Independent) seem to have stayed out of the primary this year. Its really strange, there was no Democratic incumbent running for re-election. There should have been a wide selection of viable candidates like in 2008, as happens all the time in non-incumbent years. But somehow, no big names but Hillary showed up. Yes there was the token opponent who mostly agreed with Hillary and said she would be a good President; and there was the Independent Bernie who re-registered to run as a Democrat. How was there not a contested field like in 2008?
She did win the popular vote though.
Yes, only in America can you win by 3 million votes and still somehow lose. Thanks, Electoral College!
Somehow? There is no mystery. She was not trying for the popular vote, both Hillary and Trump were allocating time and money for the electoral vote. If the popular vote were the goal they both would have allocated time and money very differently and that popular vote would have been very different. The current popular vote is a side effect, trivia.
Also its not the electoral college that is the problem. The Electoral College only has a small effect itself, a small bump due to the two electors every state gets that correspond to their Senators, the remaining number of electors corresponding to their House representation which is proportional to population. The real huge bump is due to the states going winner take all. That is a state problem, not a federal problem. Some states do proportional rather than winner take all. Two states?
She did win the popular vote though.
The popular vote is trivia. Neither side was trying to win the popular vote. They spent their time and money to maximize the electoral. If the popular was the goal then they would have spent their time and money very different and we would have a very different popular vote as a result. Focusing on the popular vote is like focusing on the fact that the losing team in a football game moved the ball more yards. Interesting but neither team was trying for that.
I never understood the need for Dual SIMS. Is one for your wifes calls and one for your girlfriends?
Business number and personal number on the same device?