My favorite "if we can only get a sliver" anecdote is from the late-90's tech bubble: Supposedly the business plan of BBQ.com was "Americans spend $4 billion a year on grills and grilling supplies. If we can capture just 10% of that..."
(I'm pretty sure I read that in a Po Bronson book/article, so take it with a salt lick.)
Filing a law suit should at an absolute minimum require the plaintiff to pay some costs to the defendant (perhaps the smaller of the legal costs incurred by either side) should the plaintiff lose. This will help to minimize the number of frivolous lawsuits and so minimize the quelling impact of such lawsuits on society.
Aside from reclaiming legal costs, how about the plaintiff stands to lose the amount of compensatory and punitive damages they seek? That'll bring frivolous lawsuits to a halt with a quickness, and will probably keep amounts sought reasonable in legitimate suits. (Keep the appeals process in place, of course.)
Agreed. Repurchasing and boosting the dividend when the stock traded above $700 might have been a good idea; doing so when it's hovering around $400 with a PEG ratio of 47% is a good idea. Buying back your own stock at a discount to what it's worth, while simultaneously returning cash to shareholders and appeasing a huge PITA activist investor? That's smart.
Financing the buyback with debt is a tiny bit worrisome, but Apple's probably just taking advantage of the low interest rates their high credit rating and hoard of cash afford them.
Psssht. Some book I read once said you can't know the velocity and location at the same time. Before you give me any of that "that's only for particles" garbage, cars are made of particles, so just consider that times 2^28.
Unless they advertise as up to x or more, which means it can be whatever they feel like, which is exactly what he's getting. IIRC, The Oatmeal or xkcd did a comic on this...
I'd never heard of NI3 prior to your post, so I hit up Wikipedia, and found out this important fact: Nitrogen triiodide has no practical commercial value due to its extreme shock sensitivity, making it impossible to store, transport, and utilize for controlled explosions.
Pressurizing it in a squirt gun seems like a bad idea.
My thoughts exactly. It's not like they were the heroes in this; they just happened to do what they felt was politically expedient, which doesn't bode well for the next round.
This only holds if the ice cap is floating at exactly surface level. If the ice cap happens to project above the surface of the water, then not so much.
Remember, the buoyant force is proportional to both the different densities (density of ice < density of water) and the different pressures being exerted on the object in the liquid (air pressure + g < water pressure + g). For small volumes (an ice cube) this is negligible, and ice floats at the surface level and as it melts, the water level decreases as the ice melts. For much larger volumes (icebergs, ice shelves, polar ice caps), the volume of ice above the surface of the liquid increases as a function of total volume of the ice: the larger the ice chunk is, less and less additional water needs to be displaced for it to float, and the overall volume of water level increases as that ice melts.
...though I agree with most of what was said. I also noticed that their argument is against the economics of greenhouse-gas-reduction, and yet none of the signatories are economists.
The problem with disqualifying someone with a Geology background is that some of strongest arguments that climate change is man-made are inferred from the geologic record: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html
I wasn't trying to dampen the mood (much); it just seems to me that every incremental improvement in the technology gets a news post, while for it to be actually useful, it needs to do more than print Legos. I'm saying "Let me know when it can print Mindstorms."
Slashdot Mirror
You have a strange sense of humor. If it were true, it would be less funny than it would be larcenous.
Water under the water, covering the water?
the talents of Jennifer Lawrence, who I happen to think is a primo piece of ass second only to the adorable Anna Kendrick
I agree with you on both these counts, but I especially agree with the people who modded you '+5, Insightful'.
It's a little something called 'class,' you yokel. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a buttocks to tattoo.
My favorite "if we can only get a sliver" anecdote is from the late-90's tech bubble: Supposedly the business plan of BBQ.com was "Americans spend $4 billion a year on grills and grilling supplies. If we can capture just 10% of that..."
(I'm pretty sure I read that in a Po Bronson book/article, so take it with a salt lick.)
Filing a law suit should at an absolute minimum require the plaintiff to pay some costs to the defendant (perhaps the smaller of the legal costs incurred by either side) should the plaintiff lose. This will help to minimize the number of frivolous lawsuits and so minimize the quelling impact of such lawsuits on society.
Aside from reclaiming legal costs, how about the plaintiff stands to lose the amount of compensatory and punitive damages they seek? That'll bring frivolous lawsuits to a halt with a quickness, and will probably keep amounts sought reasonable in legitimate suits. (Keep the appeals process in place, of course.)
That's precisely the point I was trying to make - I guess I didn't do a very good job of it. :)
Agreed. Repurchasing and boosting the dividend when the stock traded above $700 might have been a good idea; doing so when it's hovering around $400 with a PEG ratio of 47% is a good idea. Buying back your own stock at a discount to what it's worth, while simultaneously returning cash to shareholders and appeasing a huge PITA activist investor? That's smart.
Financing the buyback with debt is a tiny bit worrisome, but Apple's probably just taking advantage of the low interest rates their high credit rating and hoard of cash afford them.
Psssht. Some book I read once said you can't know the velocity and location at the same time. Before you give me any of that "that's only for particles" garbage, cars are made of particles, so just consider that times 2^28.
Not so smart now, am I?
Mine too, except she's complaining about 7.9" vs 4". Also, I don't have a gf any more.
Because at some point the courts will resolve the issue, and the needs that drove the two parties into business together to begin with remain.
Unless they advertise as up to x or more , which means it can be whatever they feel like, which is exactly what he's getting. IIRC, The Oatmeal or xkcd did a comic on this...
Oh great, now you had to go and make it erotic.
Why mistake? Yesterday she was an unknown artist. Today she got her name on Slashdot.
...the hub of taste-makers and cognoscenti of the art world.
Somehow I think "No Wind" might be a simplification too far.
But the OP didn't specify *which* Alpine conditions - he could be living on the Moon Alps.
I'd never heard of NI3 prior to your post, so I hit up Wikipedia, and found out this important fact: Nitrogen triiodide has no practical commercial value due to its extreme shock sensitivity, making it impossible to store, transport, and utilize for controlled explosions.
Pressurizing it in a squirt gun seems like a bad idea.
My thoughts exactly. It's not like they were the heroes in this; they just happened to do what they felt was politically expedient, which doesn't bode well for the next round.
This only holds if the ice cap is floating at exactly surface level. If the ice cap happens to project above the surface of the water, then not so much.
Remember, the buoyant force is proportional to both the different densities (density of ice < density of water) and the different pressures being exerted on the object in the liquid (air pressure + g < water pressure + g). For small volumes (an ice cube) this is negligible, and ice floats at the surface level and as it melts, the water level decreases as the ice melts. For much larger volumes (icebergs, ice shelves, polar ice caps), the volume of ice above the surface of the liquid increases as a function of total volume of the ice: the larger the ice chunk is, less and less additional water needs to be displaced for it to float, and the overall volume of water level increases as that ice melts.
...though I agree with most of what was said. I also noticed that their argument is against the economics of greenhouse-gas-reduction, and yet none of the signatories are economists.
The problem with disqualifying someone with a Geology background is that some of strongest arguments that climate change is man-made are inferred from the geologic record: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html
If someone claimed the Earth was perfectly round, I would dispute it too.
If the Sno-Caps melt, it would be a nonpareil-ed disaster!
I bet the first "killer app" renders the privates of your favorite porn star (modeled from various shots in a video, including elasticity).
I need to get out more.
Now there's a companion to the 'Facebook of pr0n' I keep reading about on the...library.
I wasn't trying to dampen the mood (much); it just seems to me that every incremental improvement in the technology gets a news post, while for it to be actually useful, it needs to do more than print Legos. I'm saying "Let me know when it can print Mindstorms."