Crocodiles and the non-bird flying lizards like the Pterodactylus together with the dinosaurs form one group, the so called archosaurs. This group is very old and appeared around 250 million years ago, branching into crocodiles, winged lizards and dinosaurs around 235 million years ago. Crocodiles were once a very diverse group, and many ancient large dinosaur-like lizards were in fact crocodiles. There were even crocodiles that looked like a crossbred of dolphins and seals, like Metriorhynchus. For some time, the crocodiles were the top predators, until the dinosaurs grew large and replaced them almost everywhere.
On the other hand, the Komodo dragon is not very closely related to the dinosaurs. It belongs with snakes, many small lizards and the ancient mosasaurs (mostly marine species) to their own group, the Squamata (scaled reptiles). It is the sister group to the archosaurs, also appearing 250 million years ago.
The whole story is quite complicated and fascinating. The KT-boundary basicly wiped out every animal that was larger than around two feet on land and three feet in the water. This was true for most of the mammals, most of the birds, all of the winged lizards, all marine lizards etc.pp.. And it took some million years for the remaining groups to recover. Birds for instance survived only on an island around Patagonia, all other ancient birds like the Hesperornithes died out.
You are right. uint128_t gives us about 38 decimal places, which gives us about 1 km in Planck-lengths. The known Universe (46 billion lightyears) would need another 23 decimal places. But with 210 bits (~63 decimal places), we should be safe.
I once wrote an interpreter, which is at least for the language parsing part pretty similar to writing a compiler. And as I did not know about yacc or lex yet at the time, I wrote the parser all by myself (you know, young student...). The next step with dumping binary code instead of executing the parse tree would have been new to me, but manageable. Linker, profiler and optimization would have been beyond my coding abilities and knowledge at the time.
They still have rails, only that those are made from concrete. What makes rails different than other types of track is the forced steering. The way defines the direction the vehicle moves.
This one doesn't have rails, it's a normal road, just with wires overhead.
Just about every country ever ruled by GB benefited handsomely. Just look around the world. Most former GB colonies have good economies, stable cultures and systems of government, all things they got by being civilized by GB.
Ok, I'll bite, So you are saying that Sudan, Simbabwe and Iraq profited handsomely from being "civilized" by the UK? In many countries which once were british colonies, and which now are quite well-off, the indigene population was just killed, and mainly replaced by british and other european invaders, like Canada, Australia or New Zealand. If your idea of civilizing is just killing most of the people and lock the remaining few into some reservations, I never want to be civilized by you. Look at the list of GDP per capita and look where the first british ex-colony appears which a) is not a single town or an island state of strategic importance (like Singapore, Cyprus or Malta) and which b) did not see a major population exchange which left the indigenes in the minority during the colonisation. It's Malaysia, slightly below the average line for all countries.
There is more thorough analysis available, which basicly states, that the groups Remain and Leave have very distinct properties.
Remainers are younger than 45, live in large towns and have an university degree or are students at an university.
Leavers are older than 45, live in rural and small town regions, mainly in the East and North of England and in Central Wales, and have no university degree.
In general, Remainers are profiting or hope to profite from Globalization and free movement, because they are young, well educated and live close to the economic centers. Leavers are much older, less well educated and live in regions which are hard hit by globalization and are in a long economic downturn. They were children or young adults, when UK joined the EU, and they feel they never got anything back during their lifetime, while all the profits from the economic cooperation went somewhere else.
Northern Ireland voted Remain.with 55.8% vs. 44.2% Leave. So it actually makes sense.
Liverpool, Manchester, Oxford, Newcastle, Norwich -- most of the large towns voted Remain. Birmingham voted 50.4 vs. 49.6 for the Leave. You could say that Remain was the vote of the elite and of everyone else except the English and the Welsh. Gibraltar for instance voted 96% Remain. Leave was the vote of small town and rural Wales and England. And this shows the depth of the problem. The UK is deeply split. There is the Welsh and English "regular people" vote at one side, and then there is the elite vote, and the vote of everyone else. And this split seems to fit to the categories of people whose wages and living conditions barely improved in the last 40 years, and those, who are better off now.
As it were, it wasn't Third Worlders which caused the UKIP to rise, it was First Worlders, mainly from Poland, which were taking the low paying jobs. And they were paying their taxes and their social insurance, and they were contributing an estimated 5 percent of GDP in the UK. For some reason, doing good work no one else is applying for is frowned upon in the UK.
Luckily we have the exact numbers ready, so we don't need to speculate.
Germany generated in 2015 a total of 630.1 TWh of electric energy, and in the same time imported 12.1 TWh from France, while exporting 83.1 TWh to other countries. Just to put the numbers in perspective.
Natural gas in Germany accounted for 8.8% of all electric energy generation in 2015, down from 12.1% in 2012. Other sources were lignite (24.0%), anthrazite (18.2%), nuclear (14.1%) and oil (0.8%). Renewables were at 30%, and 4% not specified.
You seem to be pseudo-informed. Ruhrkohle AG does not mine lignite. They mine anthrazite in Ibbenbühren and Bottrop. The lignite is mainly mined by RWE (at the Lower Rhine), MIBRAG (Central Germany) and Vattenfall (Lausitz). Vattenfall tries to sell its lignite activities in Germany though. At the Rhine, Hambach and Garzweiler II are already mined, and it is estimated that they will be done between 2040 and 2045. Hambach II, while being planned in the 1990ies, will not be realized. MIBRAG has stopped all further expansion plans, will not built the planned lignite power plant Profen.
So which alleged giant lignite pit are you talking about?
A check is just an order to pay from a certain account to either the specified person or the person cashing in the check. If the account is not with the bank the check is presented to, you have interbanking transfer. And you have transactions (read an RDBMS manual to learn about transactions!). Basicly one bank has to lock the account at the other bank, check the balance, withdraw the money and then credit it to its own account. For security reasons, no bank can simply lock an account at another bank. Instead, the transaction is split into two transactions between the banks and a clearing point. The bank the check is presented to is booking against that account at another bank at the clearing point, creating a short time debt. Then the clearing point is performing all transactions with the other bank, and thus creating a short time credit voucher. The debt and the credit voucher are then cleared at the clearing point, thus the name. If they don't match, both transactions are rolled back the next time the banks and the clearing point contact each other. A copy of the check is mailed to the other bank. So it takes at least three transaction runs just to get money from one checking account to the bank to cash out a check. For security reasons, the transaction runs are done several times (I know of one bank which does it at least five times with five different ways to transfer the transaction file, just to make sure the transaction file is complete, not hampered with and authorized).
Now the other bank has an account where money was withdrawn. The owner of said account has a certain time limit (depends on the Terms of Services, but can easily be two weeks) to dispute the withdrawal and to cancel it. If he says that the check is fraudulent, the original check will be inspected at the other bank, and if there is anything fishy about the check, the transactions are reversed. So it can take easily more than two weeks until a check finally clears. And it has nothing to do with incompetent and slow banks.
If you want security and liberty, at a minimum, you must stop importing people that want to destroy your culture.
Here is where your argument fails. Most people out to "destroy culture" (whatever that means) come from within. The foreign agent trying to destabilize a society is a cliché. Sure, they exist, but there are only a few of them. The main threat to a society are people being outcast for what reason ever (economically, culturally, for religious reasons) and try to get revenge for feeling outcast.
It's the same misconception with most crimes. The people most likely to kill you are yourself, your parents, your spouse and your children. And so the people most likely to commit terrorism are people who feel they belong to a former elite and are now locked out from their perceived rightful priviledges, and second generation immigrants who were frowned upon by the majority for being second generation immigrants.
In the 1970ies, there was a race to the mega oil tanker, culminating in the 414 m ship Batillus (1976, 553,00 tdw), and in the 458 m ship Porthos (1980, 564,000 tdw). Then for about 20 years, none of such large ships were built anymore, and after some big oil spills, the double hull tanker was replacing the single hull. But in 2001, the double hull tanker reached 400,000 twd too, with the Hellespont-Alhambra-Class at 450,000 tdw.
Yes, the large container ships also have their problems as the infrastructure to handle those ships is not there yet. But it will be built, and then also the mega container ships will be able to be used much more flexible. Maybe for the next 20 years, not many new 400 m container ships will be ordered, but then they will be built again.
In a certain way, it will, because revenues will plummet. If automated cars are ready for prime time, it means that they are causing significantly less accidents (and less expensive accidents) than manually operated cars. And that means that the rates per individual car will go down significantly, as the payouts per car will go down significantly. Even if manufactures take out insurances for any problems their cars could cause, it will be much less revenue for the insurer than if he could sell policies for each car at today's tariffs.
That's why I used the quotes. The braking by shorting the electric engine always generates electric energy, and as the momentum of the engine was generated by using electric energy, we now re-generate that energy (minus all the waste). In a literal sense, braking by shorting the engine is regenerative braking. What we do now with the electric energy makes no difference for the actual braking. It's just a good idea to try to either store the energy for later use or feed it back into the grid, rather than waste it by heating up a resistor array. From an engineering point of view, only the energy we can use later is re-gained, thus it make sense not to call it regenerative braking without the re-use of energy.
Regenerative braking is a very old concept. The first street cars in the late 1800ies already had some kind of "regenerative" braking, they just weren't feeding the gained electricity back into the grid, but instead running it through large resistors on the roof of the car and thus turning them into heat. Every electric engine is at the same time a generator, it just depends on how you switch the power lines. If you short an electric engine, it generates electric energy until it stops running.
Most problems with regenerative braking were how to turn the electric energy gained from shorting the engine back into the standards of the grid, but these were solved at least for trains in the late 1950ies and early 1960 with the upcomping thyristor. Since then, all electric trains use regenerative braking with feedback into the grid. For cars, the problem was how to transform the energy into the right current and voltage to charge the batteries, and how to use conventional braking if the batteries are already full, and make it a smooth transition so the driver doesn't notice the difference, but the car always behaves the same.
Yes, that "trustend" was a typo of mine. I just wanted to point out that the idea, totalitarian regimes at first would go and disarm their people, is not universally true. Most modern regimes don't, especially if they are militaristic. Then they actually need weapons in the hand of their people. They count on the fact, that in the case of doubt, their troups will have the better weapons, and that most people will support the current regime as long as it mostly guarantees law and order, how ever screwed up the laws may be, and how many lives upholding of the order will cost.
While the Nazis indeed singled out groups which were considered Staatsfeinde and denied them the right to bear arms (Jews, convicted homosexuals, Sinti and Roma...), their idea about weapons in private hands was more aligned with the ideas of the NRA: Everyone considered "trustend and reliable" had the right to bear arms (Reichswaffengesetz of 1938). Only short guns were regulated, rifles and munition were not. So everyone (except jews, convicted homosexuals etc.pp.) was allowed to buy as many rifles as he wanted and stock up as much muniton as he could pay for.
Gun control existed in Germany before 1933, but this was imposed by the Treaty of Versailles, which after World War I also tried to control the weapons in civilian hands, because it was feared that Germany was trying to bypass limits on the weaponization of its army by handing the weapons to apparent civilians and form militias to replace the regular army.
The Terms of Service of Facebook counts several acts which are forbidden:
Giving the password away.
Giving the developer credentials away.
Having other persons access your profile.
Perform other acts which may compromise the security of your account.
Thus, even if you don't give the password to Source Assured and just enter it in the app which never sends it out, it would still be a violation of the contract, because other persons have full access to your profile via the app.
Of course this is a contract. One side presents its conditions to provide a service (the Terms of Service), and the other side agrees to the conditions by signing up. That is a valid contract at face value. It still might be that parts of the Terms of Service are considered unenforceable or violating the law, but until that happens, the contract stands as agreed upon by the service provicer by providing the service and the user by using it.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, the Komodo dragon is not very closely related to the dinosaurs. It belongs with snakes, many small lizards and the ancient mosasaurs (mostly marine species) to their own group, the Squamata (scaled reptiles). It is the sister group to the archosaurs, also appearing 250 million years ago.
The whole story is quite complicated and fascinating. The KT-boundary basicly wiped out every animal that was larger than around two feet on land and three feet in the water. This was true for most of the mammals, most of the birds, all of the winged lizards, all marine lizards etc.pp.. And it took some million years for the remaining groups to recover. Birds for instance survived only on an island around Patagonia, all other ancient birds like the Hesperornithes died out.
You are right. uint128_t gives us about 38 decimal places, which gives us about 1 km in Planck-lengths. The known Universe (46 billion lightyears) would need another 23 decimal places. But with 210 bits (~63 decimal places), we should be safe.
Just to put things in perspective: uint128_t is large enough to store the size of the Universe measured in Planck lengths.
I once wrote an interpreter, which is at least for the language parsing part pretty similar to writing a compiler. And as I did not know about yacc or lex yet at the time, I wrote the parser all by myself (you know, young student...). The next step with dumping binary code instead of executing the parse tree would have been new to me, but manageable. Linker, profiler and optimization would have been beyond my coding abilities and knowledge at the time.
This one doesn't have rails, it's a normal road, just with wires overhead.
Just about every country ever ruled by GB benefited handsomely. Just look around the world. Most former GB colonies have good economies, stable cultures and systems of government, all things they got by being civilized by GB.
Ok, I'll bite, So you are saying that Sudan, Simbabwe and Iraq profited handsomely from being "civilized" by the UK? In many countries which once were british colonies, and which now are quite well-off, the indigene population was just killed, and mainly replaced by british and other european invaders, like Canada, Australia or New Zealand. If your idea of civilizing is just killing most of the people and lock the remaining few into some reservations, I never want to be civilized by you. Look at the list of GDP per capita and look where the first british ex-colony appears which a) is not a single town or an island state of strategic importance (like Singapore, Cyprus or Malta) and which b) did not see a major population exchange which left the indigenes in the minority during the colonisation. It's Malaysia, slightly below the average line for all countries.
If you use this definition of Second World, Sweden and Switzerland would be Third World countries (see the map in the article you linked).
Remainers are younger than 45, live in large towns and have an university degree or are students at an university.
Leavers are older than 45, live in rural and small town regions, mainly in the East and North of England and in Central Wales, and have no university degree.
In general, Remainers are profiting or hope to profite from Globalization and free movement, because they are young, well educated and live close to the economic centers. Leavers are much older, less well educated and live in regions which are hard hit by globalization and are in a long economic downturn. They were children or young adults, when UK joined the EU, and they feel they never got anything back during their lifetime, while all the profits from the economic cooperation went somewhere else.
Liverpool, Manchester, Oxford, Newcastle, Norwich -- most of the large towns voted Remain. Birmingham voted 50.4 vs. 49.6 for the Leave. You could say that Remain was the vote of the elite and of everyone else except the English and the Welsh. Gibraltar for instance voted 96% Remain. Leave was the vote of small town and rural Wales and England. And this shows the depth of the problem. The UK is deeply split. There is the Welsh and English "regular people" vote at one side, and then there is the elite vote, and the vote of everyone else. And this split seems to fit to the categories of people whose wages and living conditions barely improved in the last 40 years, and those, who are better off now.
As it were, it wasn't Third Worlders which caused the UKIP to rise, it was First Worlders, mainly from Poland, which were taking the low paying jobs. And they were paying their taxes and their social insurance, and they were contributing an estimated 5 percent of GDP in the UK. For some reason, doing good work no one else is applying for is frowned upon in the UK.
Luckily we have the exact numbers ready, so we don't need to speculate. Germany generated in 2015 a total of 630.1 TWh of electric energy, and in the same time imported 12.1 TWh from France, while exporting 83.1 TWh to other countries. Just to put the numbers in perspective.
At least that's what the government publishes.
So which alleged giant lignite pit are you talking about?
A check is just an order to pay from a certain account to either the specified person or the person cashing in the check. If the account is not with the bank the check is presented to, you have interbanking transfer. And you have transactions (read an RDBMS manual to learn about transactions!). Basicly one bank has to lock the account at the other bank, check the balance, withdraw the money and then credit it to its own account. For security reasons, no bank can simply lock an account at another bank. Instead, the transaction is split into two transactions between the banks and a clearing point. The bank the check is presented to is booking against that account at another bank at the clearing point, creating a short time debt. Then the clearing point is performing all transactions with the other bank, and thus creating a short time credit voucher. The debt and the credit voucher are then cleared at the clearing point, thus the name. If they don't match, both transactions are rolled back the next time the banks and the clearing point contact each other. A copy of the check is mailed to the other bank. So it takes at least three transaction runs just to get money from one checking account to the bank to cash out a check. For security reasons, the transaction runs are done several times (I know of one bank which does it at least five times with five different ways to transfer the transaction file, just to make sure the transaction file is complete, not hampered with and authorized).
Now the other bank has an account where money was withdrawn. The owner of said account has a certain time limit (depends on the Terms of Services, but can easily be two weeks) to dispute the withdrawal and to cancel it. If he says that the check is fraudulent, the original check will be inspected at the other bank, and if there is anything fishy about the check, the transactions are reversed. So it can take easily more than two weeks until a check finally clears. And it has nothing to do with incompetent and slow banks.
It won't lock out anything really dangerous though. That's like being stabbed with a knife and deciding to stop drinking.
If you want security and liberty, at a minimum, you must stop importing people that want to destroy your culture.
Here is where your argument fails. Most people out to "destroy culture" (whatever that means) come from within. The foreign agent trying to destabilize a society is a cliché. Sure, they exist, but there are only a few of them. The main threat to a society are people being outcast for what reason ever (economically, culturally, for religious reasons) and try to get revenge for feeling outcast.
It's the same misconception with most crimes. The people most likely to kill you are yourself, your parents, your spouse and your children. And so the people most likely to commit terrorism are people who feel they belong to a former elite and are now locked out from their perceived rightful priviledges, and second generation immigrants who were frowned upon by the majority for being second generation immigrants.
Yes, the large container ships also have their problems as the infrastructure to handle those ships is not there yet. But it will be built, and then also the mega container ships will be able to be used much more flexible. Maybe for the next 20 years, not many new 400 m container ships will be ordered, but then they will be built again.
In a certain way, it will, because revenues will plummet. If automated cars are ready for prime time, it means that they are causing significantly less accidents (and less expensive accidents) than manually operated cars. And that means that the rates per individual car will go down significantly, as the payouts per car will go down significantly. Even if manufactures take out insurances for any problems their cars could cause, it will be much less revenue for the insurer than if he could sell policies for each car at today's tariffs.
That's why I used the quotes. The braking by shorting the electric engine always generates electric energy, and as the momentum of the engine was generated by using electric energy, we now re-generate that energy (minus all the waste). In a literal sense, braking by shorting the engine is regenerative braking. What we do now with the electric energy makes no difference for the actual braking. It's just a good idea to try to either store the energy for later use or feed it back into the grid, rather than waste it by heating up a resistor array. From an engineering point of view, only the energy we can use later is re-gained, thus it make sense not to call it regenerative braking without the re-use of energy.
Most problems with regenerative braking were how to turn the electric energy gained from shorting the engine back into the standards of the grid, but these were solved at least for trains in the late 1950ies and early 1960 with the upcomping thyristor. Since then, all electric trains use regenerative braking with feedback into the grid. For cars, the problem was how to transform the energy into the right current and voltage to charge the batteries, and how to use conventional braking if the batteries are already full, and make it a smooth transition so the driver doesn't notice the difference, but the car always behaves the same.
Yes, that "trustend" was a typo of mine. I just wanted to point out that the idea, totalitarian regimes at first would go and disarm their people, is not universally true. Most modern regimes don't, especially if they are militaristic. Then they actually need weapons in the hand of their people. They count on the fact, that in the case of doubt, their troups will have the better weapons, and that most people will support the current regime as long as it mostly guarantees law and order, how ever screwed up the laws may be, and how many lives upholding of the order will cost.
Gun control existed in Germany before 1933, but this was imposed by the Treaty of Versailles, which after World War I also tried to control the weapons in civilian hands, because it was feared that Germany was trying to bypass limits on the weaponization of its army by handing the weapons to apparent civilians and form militias to replace the regular army.
Yes, if the Farmer Market also dictates the prices, defines the products to be sold and the Terms of Service.
Thus, even if you don't give the password to Source Assured and just enter it in the app which never sends it out, it would still be a violation of the contract, because other persons have full access to your profile via the app.
Of course this is a contract. One side presents its conditions to provide a service (the Terms of Service), and the other side agrees to the conditions by signing up. That is a valid contract at face value. It still might be that parts of the Terms of Service are considered unenforceable or violating the law, but until that happens, the contract stands as agreed upon by the service provicer by providing the service and the user by using it.