Being in Washington, I can attest that what AC says here is true, despite being a dick about it. We have a bit of the same problem, but not quite as bad. We've some more reasonable people in charge (this is changing, we're going the way of California slowly); we still burn every year, and once in a while, we get quite large ones (like last year, 3 fires merged into one) we don't get them as large as California.
Of course global warming plays a role in increasing forest fires, but it is far from the only role. Forests, just like anything else, need periodic maintenance. That has to either come from nature (fires) or humans (logging, fires, etc.). If we perform better forest maintenance, we can then better mitigate fires and protect homes. If we don't...well, nature WILL win.
The mirrors they had for reflecting the beam back down the tunnel have been SIGNIFICANTLY upgraded. They can measure how much the reflector swings on its pendulum by the impact of said laser itself.
The Hanford LIGO facility can detect a tractor-trailer moving down I5. The effects of these and any other distortions or disturbances are very similar in nature to the waves they're trying to detect, so much of the early work was spent on identifying these and filtering them out. The mirror upgrades helped. (This all comes from a tour of the facility)
So, in essence, yes. Upgrades. Physical equipment, sensors, hell, probably even people.
For long haul, my rule-of-thumb (based on 35k miles of "thumb" over the last 20 years) is about $175k/mile for two conduit and 144 fiber. Note: this is good for optical ground wire on long-haul electrical transmission lines, as well as buried.
So $50 million buys.285714285714 of a mile, or 1508.57142857 feet or 459.8126 meters.
Honestly this is the first time I heard of it. Most likely as the explanation illustrates it isn't a tool that I need to solve my problems. But still if a tool was really that popular I would had heard about it before.
To even ask the question to females only acknowledges that men and women are in fact different, with different views driven by biology. Well done Slashdot.(emphasis mine)
While I agree in principle that men and women have different views and there are biological differences, I don't think this post is emphasizing those biological differences. It's asking for the same reason I often ask female coworkers the same thing: they have different experiences than I do. I want to better understand the problem, but I can't do that until I know what it is, and I can't know what it is myself because I can't experience it.
These different experiences can be attributed to different views that can then be ascribed to being based on gender, but that's an indirect relationship. This post is asking women, not because of their biology, but because they're the ones with the experience. That difference is important.
Asking for views on a matter specifically from the group most directly affected does not acknowledge any differences directly. It only admits incomplete knowledge on the part of the person doing the asking, an admission of ignorance.
True story. Me and a buddy were going to his favorite strip club in the city he grew up in. He needed to get his SD card from another friend's GPS so he could get the address in his GPS, then drove there. Had a good time.
When we're trying to leave, he was plugging in home to the GPS, and while it was figuring out what the hell to do, I told him to just take a right out of the parking lot (which would take us east) then then keep right around the parking lot (two more rights), and a final right when we got to the main road (vs taking a left out of the parking lot, fighting traffic). A left after the underpass, and back on the interstate westbound.
He froze up because that would get him lost, and instead waited for the GPS; he took the left out of the parking lot (after waiting for traffic) and then a right at the main road at a stop sign (waiting for more traffic). Took longer his way because of everyone else leaving, while my way avoided the bottleneck...
It was on that day I was glad I never started relying on GPS and renewed by personal vow to always be able to read a paper map and road signs.
The new bill would require vendors that provide internet-connected equipment to the U.S. government to ensure their products are patchable and conform to industry security standards. It would also prohibit vendors from supplying devices that have unchangeable passwords or possess known security vulnerabilities.
"We can't be bothered to do our own research on what we buy, so you aren't allowed to sell us those. And to make sure you comply, we'll do our own research on what you sell us!"
Why not just mandate that the government can't buy those? That would be a lot simpler and accomplish the exact same thing. Neither addresses the real issue, but that's obviously not what this is about.
Thanks for that. I can't mod you up as I don't have mod points, but thanks. It's interesting times we live in, will be neat to see something come of this. I have my doubts, but I also have my hopes.
I believe you just "mistakenly" described the Ministry of Truth. Also, we're at war with Eastasia, we've always been at war with Eastasia. The troops need boots.
Certainly they don't want to pay more for electricity depending on its use...
I don't disagree with anything you said, but wanted to lend some more data to your viewpoint. Here, we DO pay more for electricity depending on its use: https://www.bbec.org/wp-conten.... Aside from different service charges, the rates are different for each use. For example, Residential is $0.6/kWh while irrigation is $0.03/kWh...for part of the year. I'm sure there are reasons and justifications for all this, but thought you'd find it interesting nonetheless.
On an unrelated note, I'm not happy getting electricity from coal when I could (should) be getting it from hydro where I'm at...
Yea, you're right. I should have put quotes around "safe"...I was trying to offset naysayers who would scream "Of course there's more deaths in coal, it's just been around longer!". "Clean" coal is just burning more coal to deal with the burned coal, with a necessary net increase in pollutants output, or catching the soot, which then gets buried/whatever, but while the filter's filling up, efficiency goes down because flow is blocked...treating emissions should begin with the fuel and at the beginning of the process, not at the end.
Nuclear power is orders of magnitude safer than coal....
Tell me that during the next meltdown.
Similar to "traveling by aircraft is safer than traveling by car". Airplane crash immediately affects more people and is more newsworthy and thus gains the spotlight. Sure, coal and cars have been around much longer to cause more deaths, but they've also been around longer to generate more safe energy/miles so that should balance out.
Disclaimer: I don't recall my source when I read of the statistics several years ago, so if there's new data that disproves this, let me know!
Slashdot Mirror
Also this https://xkcd.com/1823/
https://xkcd.com/1904/
Well done, sir. I applaud thee.
I was thinking the same, then I read where it's from: Wired. Of course, the review makes sense now.
Being in Washington, I can attest that what AC says here is true, despite being a dick about it. We have a bit of the same problem, but not quite as bad. We've some more reasonable people in charge (this is changing, we're going the way of California slowly); we still burn every year, and once in a while, we get quite large ones (like last year, 3 fires merged into one) we don't get them as large as California.
Of course global warming plays a role in increasing forest fires, but it is far from the only role. Forests, just like anything else, need periodic maintenance. That has to either come from nature (fires) or humans (logging, fires, etc.). If we perform better forest maintenance, we can then better mitigate fires and protect homes. If we don't...well, nature WILL win.
The mirrors they had for reflecting the beam back down the tunnel have been SIGNIFICANTLY upgraded. They can measure how much the reflector swings on its pendulum by the impact of said laser itself.
The Hanford LIGO facility can detect a tractor-trailer moving down I5. The effects of these and any other distortions or disturbances are very similar in nature to the waves they're trying to detect, so much of the early work was spent on identifying these and filtering them out. The mirror upgrades helped. (This all comes from a tour of the facility)
So, in essence, yes. Upgrades. Physical equipment, sensors, hell, probably even people.
Here is a rough estimate as of 2015 from Quora:
So $50 million buys .285714285714 of a mile, or 1508.57142857 feet or 459.8126 meters.
Thank god we're saved!!
Incorrect.
Honestly this is the first time I heard of it. Most likely as the explanation illustrates it isn't a tool that I need to solve my problems. But still if a tool was really that popular I would had heard about it before.
Obligatory: https://xkcd.com/1053/
(To be fair, I'm another one of the 10,000)
To even ask the question to females only acknowledges that men and women are in fact different, with different views driven by biology. Well done Slashdot.(emphasis mine)
While I agree in principle that men and women have different views and there are biological differences, I don't think this post is emphasizing those biological differences. It's asking for the same reason I often ask female coworkers the same thing: they have different experiences than I do. I want to better understand the problem, but I can't do that until I know what it is, and I can't know what it is myself because I can't experience it.
These different experiences can be attributed to different views that can then be ascribed to being based on gender, but that's an indirect relationship. This post is asking women, not because of their biology, but because they're the ones with the experience. That difference is important.
Asking for views on a matter specifically from the group most directly affected does not acknowledge any differences directly. It only admits incomplete knowledge on the part of the person doing the asking, an admission of ignorance.
... "staring at the sun may trigger improved gaming skills"...
You finally figured out how to get gamers Outside!
Obligatory: Awkward Yeti
Or use the link in the title of the article
True story. Me and a buddy were going to his favorite strip club in the city he grew up in. He needed to get his SD card from another friend's GPS so he could get the address in his GPS, then drove there. Had a good time.
When we're trying to leave, he was plugging in home to the GPS, and while it was figuring out what the hell to do, I told him to just take a right out of the parking lot (which would take us east) then then keep right around the parking lot (two more rights), and a final right when we got to the main road (vs taking a left out of the parking lot, fighting traffic). A left after the underpass, and back on the interstate westbound.
He froze up because that would get him lost, and instead waited for the GPS; he took the left out of the parking lot (after waiting for traffic) and then a right at the main road at a stop sign (waiting for more traffic). Took longer his way because of everyone else leaving, while my way avoided the bottleneck...
It was on that day I was glad I never started relying on GPS and renewed by personal vow to always be able to read a paper map and road signs.
...which direction is North.
I think it's to the left, isn't it?
The new bill would require vendors that provide internet-connected equipment to the U.S. government to ensure their products are patchable and conform to industry security standards. It would also prohibit vendors from supplying devices that have unchangeable passwords or possess known security vulnerabilities.
"We can't be bothered to do our own research on what we buy, so you aren't allowed to sell us those. And to make sure you comply, we'll do our own research on what you sell us!"
Why not just mandate that the government can't buy those? That would be a lot simpler and accomplish the exact same thing. Neither addresses the real issue, but that's obviously not what this is about.
paint.net
Thanks for that. I can't mod you up as I don't have mod points, but thanks. It's interesting times we live in, will be neat to see something come of this. I have my doubts, but I also have my hopes.
I anticipate a serious, informative and insightful discussion
Nope, ain't gonna happen, TFS mentioned Apple. This IS still /..
I do believe all of them would fit.
It's nice of them to do this, but it seems to me that having an opt-in will still basically force people to allow it due to few viable alternatives.
I believe you just "mistakenly" described the Ministry of Truth. Also, we're at war with Eastasia, we've always been at war with Eastasia. The troops need boots.
Certainly they don't want to pay more for electricity depending on its use...
I don't disagree with anything you said, but wanted to lend some more data to your viewpoint. Here, we DO pay more for electricity depending on its use: https://www.bbec.org/wp-conten.... Aside from different service charges, the rates are different for each use. For example, Residential is $0.6/kWh while irrigation is $0.03/kWh...for part of the year. I'm sure there are reasons and justifications for all this, but thought you'd find it interesting nonetheless.
On an unrelated note, I'm not happy getting electricity from coal when I could (should) be getting it from hydro where I'm at...
Yea, you're right. I should have put quotes around "safe"...I was trying to offset naysayers who would scream "Of course there's more deaths in coal, it's just been around longer!". "Clean" coal is just burning more coal to deal with the burned coal, with a necessary net increase in pollutants output, or catching the soot, which then gets buried/whatever, but while the filter's filling up, efficiency goes down because flow is blocked...treating emissions should begin with the fuel and at the beginning of the process, not at the end.
Nuclear power is orders of magnitude safer than coal....
Tell me that during the next meltdown.
Similar to "traveling by aircraft is safer than traveling by car". Airplane crash immediately affects more people and is more newsworthy and thus gains the spotlight. Sure, coal and cars have been around much longer to cause more deaths, but they've also been around longer to generate more safe energy/miles so that should balance out.
Disclaimer: I don't recall my source when I read of the statistics several years ago, so if there's new data that disproves this, let me know!