1. Hydro power is often incorporated into a dam that is required anyway (e.g. for water supply or for flooding control). Unless you can show that the inclusion of hydro power was the direct cause of the death it shouldn't be counted as caused by the hydro power generation.
2. The nuclear deaths do not include figures for those killed in heavy metals mining.
Notice where no one programmed the thing with any logic about when to pay out? They are relying on math to handle the payouts.
I can't comment on the USA, but in the UK this simply isn't so. They *could* rely on maths to handle the payouts, but at least some of them go with pre-determined ones. See this for example.
By the way, the verb "to french" in cooking has come to mean to cut in long, slender strips, and some people insist that "french fries" come from that term. However, the French fried potato was known since the middle 1800s, while the OED cites the first use of the verb "to french" around 1895, so it appears pretty convincing that "french fried potatoes" came before the verb "frenching."
If 0.5% of the general population wears those watches, and 25% of known terrorists wear those watches, it is an important indicator.
No, you need to know what proportion of your population are terrorists to evaluate whether it's an important indicator or not.
Consider an extreme example, where you have a population of 1 million people and only 4 are terrorists. You will have 1 terrorist wearing a watch and 5000 innocent people. This makes it a useless indicator.
Consider an opposite extreme where you have a population of 1 million people and half are terrorists. In this scenario 2500 innocents will have such a watch and 125,000 terrorists will. This makes it a much more useful indicator.
In short, if only a small proportion of your population are terrorists, none of these individual indicators are particularly useful.
Perhaps it really is now "easy to use". I doubt it. Many moons ago I downloaded Blender to give it a shot. I installed it, messed about for a while and was totally lost. Nothing made sense in it; I could barely figure out what I was supposed to be looking at or how to draw the simplest object. I gave up cursing the UI as completely impossible and arcane.
Some time later I decided to try it again. This time I didn't even try to figure it out, I just read the Complete Newbie tutorial and did exactly what it told me to do. All of a sudden Blender made sense and seemed quick and easy to use.
So, my recommendation is not to treat Blender like other packages, where you can figure it out by clicking around for a few minutes. You're a newbie. Do the tutorial. It will definitely save you a lot of annoyance.
The AwesomeBar is too aggressive. If I type "http://g" I don't want suggestions that include "http://www.g" and almost everything else that includes the letter g.
And you don't get them. You get URLs that contain "http://www.g". You're complaining about behaviour that doesn't exist.
What's more, if you're using the awesomebar, why are you typing "http://www.g"? Why not type something that's actually related to what you want?
You are wrong. The WWW was invented before Windows 3.1 was introduced.
Technically true, but there was no browser for Windows till Mosaic in 1993. I remember the first time I saw Viola running, I really wasn't impressed and wondered what this World Wide Web was supposed to do that was any better than Usenet...oh well, I was young and foolish (whereas now I'm old-ish and foolish, probably).
And if you're developing a small site with Drupal, and think of yourself as a moderately technical person, I sincerely ask you why you're not using something like Processwire instead.
Well, I do think of myself as moderately technical, and there are two reasons:
We're doing another, larger site which Drupal is perfect for
I hadn't heard of it
So, thanks! I'll check it out. Might be very useful.
I'm not sure if I could "lot" in anywhere because I don't know how to "lot"!!
His English is correct, but you've parsed the sentence incorrectly. It actually means:
"Could you, you lot (that is, collection or group) (of people), (who live) in the United States of Florida, please (capitalised for emphasis) try to learn this."
It's a good idea to make sure you understand what's being written before you attempt to correct it.
Nope, he was pretty close. Your figure is way out - there's no way a gallon of fuel put into a cargo ship would move 1 ton 500 miles (or the inverse)....Fuel consumption is listed as 3.80 litres per second, or 1 gallon per second (3600 gallons/hour). That's a hell of a lot of fuel, and far off your 1 gallon = 1 ton moved 500 miles.
So, 3600 gallons/hour. The engine you mentioned is on the Emma Mærsk. Say it cruises at about 20 mph (speed is given as 29, but let's be conservative). That's 180 gallons/mile.
Now, to get 500 ton-miles/gallon you need to be carrying 500*180 = 90,000 tons. The Emma Mærsk can actually carry 154,000 tons. That works out at 856 ton-miles/gallon.
So, he may have been wrong, but in the opposite direction to the one you thought. Cargo ships do use an insane amount of fuel, but they also carry an insane amount of cargo.
You're joking right? Canada has 500 years worth of oil reserves at the current rate of consumption.
No, Canada has 500 years worth of oil at the current rate of production.
It has 179 billion barrels of oil reserves. Global oil consumption is 85 millions barrels a day (and increasing). That means that Canada could supply the world with oil for less than 6 years.
Not on/., true. I don't consider/. a peer-review journal, I consider it an exchange of ideas and opinions.
Oh, ok. Why save it for formal occasions? I test all my ideas that way. Still, if you don't then I can hardly accuse you of being inconsistent.
I'm afraid I don't have time to give a detailed response to your post. I think you're wrong about Islam and I could equally well rephrase part of your post as "Civilization has been tamed by religion and forced to adapt"
But I'm on my travels at the moment; off to see the Pope on Thursday. So I'm afraid I can't continue the conversation. Still, now you can disregard everything I've said as completely biased, so that's OK.:-)
Some analysis does quickly reveal, however, that a surprisingly large number of wars - past and present - have a strong correlation with religion. Very often the line of conflict is drawn between people of different religions, no other attribute (not even nationality) is as consistently present.
You seem to have lost track of the point here: the idea wasn't to convince me you were right. The idea was that you would attempt to prove yourself wrong (and if you failed, then you were right). Remember?
Instead, it looks as though you've made a decision and then gone out to find evidence to support it, which (surprise, surprise!) you found. You're simply not following the scientific methodology you originally claimed was good.
[Now, although this is beside the point: whether or not religion promotes or reduces violence...the evidence I've found is conflicting. Christianity certainly reduced inter-tribal conflict in Europe as it became established. However, you could claim that this simply opened up the possibility of large scale warfare for a net increase in violence. On the third hand, you could argue that this would actually arise from any united civilization. On the fourth hand, the actual civilizations we have to study were religious. In short, it's complicated, and simply claiming one side or the other as fact is wrong.]
but so far I've yet to find one religion that has not killed for its believes.
And I've yet to find one scientific advance that's not been used in warfare...but that doesn't mean that the point of science is war.
No, to test your theory you should look to see if the introduction of religion into an area increases or decreases the amount of conflict in that area. Your theory is that it increases it, but you don't seem to have checked this at all. Not very scientific of you.
Slashdot Mirror
Install http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/en-us/products/2010-editions/visual-cpp-express first.
These figures are inaccurate for two reasons:
1. Hydro power is often incorporated into a dam that is required anyway (e.g. for water supply or for flooding control). Unless you can show that the inclusion of hydro power was the direct cause of the death it shouldn't be counted as caused by the hydro power generation.
2. The nuclear deaths do not include figures for those killed in heavy metals mining.
I can't comment on the USA, but in the UK this simply isn't so. They *could* rely on maths to handle the payouts, but at least some of them go with pre-determined ones. See this for example.
No. Not by any reckoning.
So the fact that frenching means "to cut into thin strips", which is exactly how french fries look, makes no never mind at all?
Maybe it does. Maybe the term came from the look of french fries. Who can tell? There's no evidence either way.
It is possible that the OED is not the sum of the knowledge of mankind...
No-one said it was. But they have evidence that supports the SD argument, as opposed to idle speculation, so I know which one I'm going with.
By the way, the verb "to french" in cooking has come to mean to cut in long, slender strips, and some people insist that "french fries" come from that term. However, the French fried potato was known since the middle 1800s, while the OED cites the first use of the verb "to french" around 1895, so it appears pretty convincing that "french fried potatoes" came before the verb "frenching."
Me too!
No, you need to know what proportion of your population are terrorists to evaluate whether it's an important indicator or not.
Consider an extreme example, where you have a population of 1 million people and only 4 are terrorists. You will have 1 terrorist wearing a watch and 5000 innocent people. This makes it a useless indicator.
Consider an opposite extreme where you have a population of 1 million people and half are terrorists. In this scenario 2500 innocents will have such a watch and 125,000 terrorists will. This makes it a much more useful indicator.
In short, if only a small proportion of your population are terrorists, none of these individual indicators are particularly useful.
Perhaps it really is now "easy to use". I doubt it. Many moons ago I downloaded Blender to give it a shot. I installed it, messed about for a while and was totally lost. Nothing made sense in it; I could barely figure out what I was supposed to be looking at or how to draw the simplest object. I gave up cursing the UI as completely impossible and arcane.
Some time later I decided to try it again. This time I didn't even try to figure it out, I just read the Complete Newbie tutorial and did exactly what it told me to do. All of a sudden Blender made sense and seemed quick and easy to use.
So, my recommendation is not to treat Blender like other packages, where you can figure it out by clicking around for a few minutes. You're a newbie. Do the tutorial. It will definitely save you a lot of annoyance.
Isn't it glorious to see the entire Earth in one frame?!
Eh ... you do realize that the Earth isn't flat, right?
Um...you do realise that if the Earth was flat, you'd still only see half of it? ;-)
The AwesomeBar is too aggressive. If I type "http://g" I don't want suggestions that include "http://www.g" and almost everything else that includes the letter g.
And you don't get them. You get URLs that contain "http://www.g". You're complaining about behaviour that doesn't exist. What's more, if you're using the awesomebar, why are you typing "http://www.g"? Why not type something that's actually related to what you want?
You are wrong. The WWW was invented before Windows 3.1 was introduced.
Technically true, but there was no browser for Windows till Mosaic in 1993. I remember the first time I saw Viola running, I really wasn't impressed and wondered what this World Wide Web was supposed to do that was any better than Usenet...oh well, I was young and foolish (whereas now I'm old-ish and foolish, probably).
You may have misunderstood the concept of a "record". The IPv4 and IPv6 records are both Linux...
The oldest republic is San Marino, from 301 AD. So, a bit longer than a half-century :-)
Well, I do think of myself as moderately technical, and there are two reasons:
So, thanks! I'll check it out. Might be very useful.
Which ones? Googling for network speed records gives: http://www.internet2.edu/lsr/history.html and they're Linux...
His English is correct, but you've parsed the sentence incorrectly. It actually means:
"Could you, you lot (that is, collection or group) (of people), (who live) in the United States of Florida, please (capitalised for emphasis) try to learn this."
It's a good idea to make sure you understand what's being written before you attempt to correct it.
In an old post of yours that I just read, you asked how to edit your KDE menus.
Hope this helps.
Nope, he was pretty close. Your figure is way out - there's no way a gallon of fuel put into a cargo ship would move 1 ton 500 miles (or the inverse)....Fuel consumption is listed as 3.80 litres per second, or 1 gallon per second (3600 gallons/hour). That's a hell of a lot of fuel, and far off your 1 gallon = 1 ton moved 500 miles.
So, 3600 gallons/hour. The engine you mentioned is on the Emma Mærsk. Say it cruises at about 20 mph (speed is given as 29, but let's be conservative). That's 180 gallons/mile.
Now, to get 500 ton-miles/gallon you need to be carrying 500*180 = 90,000 tons. The Emma Mærsk can actually carry 154,000 tons. That works out at 856 ton-miles/gallon.
So, he may have been wrong, but in the opposite direction to the one you thought. Cargo ships do use an insane amount of fuel, but they also carry an insane amount of cargo.
You tried it in Crossover Games? They have a trial version so you can see if it works.
1. Julius Caesar was reckoned to be a direct descendant of Venus, so, as a divinity himself, he was pretty much right at the head of the "priesthood".
2. There was no "proprietary calendar". There wasn't any kind of useful calendar at all. That's why he needed to create one.
3. He was killed because some people didn't like his dictatorship and wanted to restore the Republic.
No, Canada has 500 years worth of oil at the current rate of production.
It has 179 billion barrels of oil reserves. Global oil consumption is 85 millions barrels a day (and increasing). That means that Canada could supply the world with oil for less than 6 years.
Oh, ok. Why save it for formal occasions? I test all my ideas that way. Still, if you don't then I can hardly accuse you of being inconsistent.
I'm afraid I don't have time to give a detailed response to your post. I think you're wrong about Islam and I could equally well rephrase part of your post as "Civilization has been tamed by religion and forced to adapt"
But I'm on my travels at the moment; off to see the Pope on Thursday. So I'm afraid I can't continue the conversation. Still, now you can disregard everything I've said as completely biased, so that's OK. :-)
You seem to have lost track of the point here: the idea wasn't to convince me you were right. The idea was that you would attempt to prove yourself wrong (and if you failed, then you were right). Remember?
Instead, it looks as though you've made a decision and then gone out to find evidence to support it, which (surprise, surprise!) you found. You're simply not following the scientific methodology you originally claimed was good.
[Now, although this is beside the point: whether or not religion promotes or reduces violence...the evidence I've found is conflicting. Christianity certainly reduced inter-tribal conflict in Europe as it became established. However, you could claim that this simply opened up the possibility of large scale warfare for a net increase in violence. On the third hand, you could argue that this would actually arise from any united civilization. On the fourth hand, the actual civilizations we have to study were religious. In short, it's complicated, and simply claiming one side or the other as fact is wrong.]
And I've yet to find one scientific advance that's not been used in warfare...but that doesn't mean that the point of science is war.
No, to test your theory you should look to see if the introduction of religion into an area increases or decreases the amount of conflict in that area. Your theory is that it increases it, but you don't seem to have checked this at all. Not very scientific of you.