Actually, you were arguing that all bicyclists should get special treatment under vehicle law by making stop signs into yields for you, based on your personal manner of riding. Turning stops into yields does NOT minimize the hassle for everyone, as I've already explained.
Actually, the problem as you describe is that bicyclists are treating the signs as though they don't exist. They're not treating them as yield signs, they're ignoring them. Changing the law to allow riders to treat stop signs as yield signs would STILL have the described behavior be a violation.
That's a lie. If I ran over you because you blew the stop sign and failed to make the turn you could have easily made at a slower speed, it would go on my driving record, it would impact my insurance rates, and the trial would cost me a lot of money and time. I might even feel a bit of remorse over the accident, but that depends on how many bikers who want special privileges I've talked to recently.
*sigh* That's still nothing compared to being, you know, dead. I'm not much of a physical threat to you.
Also, I was taught when I was growing up that the laws of physics trump the laws of man - IE it's not a good idea to engage in behavior where I'm likely to be run over by a non-careful driver, even if I'd be technically in the correct(and them liable) by the law. I'd rather not be run over, thank you very much.;)
Second, the traffic laws aren't there just so you aren't a danger to drivers. Pedestrians are involved, and you are a significant danger to them.
... How? Of course, I don't live in an area with significant numbers of them. I avoid them just like I avoid cars. I'm continuously scanning for things to avoid, pedestrians are easy. Well, unless the crowd is too thick, but again, at that point I'm either riding elsewhere or walking.
On the generic tact, I'd think we'd see a lot more injury reports if cyclists were indeed a significant danger to pedestrians.
If you want to argue for a change, you need to admit and accept that your personal habits are irrelevant, just as my personal driving habits are when talking about changed to motor vehicle laws.
Well, you'll actually need to prove that the law is effective then, I guess. Because as you've mentioned, it's being completely non-followed right now. Having the cops enforce being not stupid for a bit might be more effective than trying to keep pushing 'stop means stop! Because bicyclists are ignoring stop signs and risking me run over them!'. I've already told you I'm not going into the intersection if I'm at risk of you running me over. I know quite a few riders that way. I'm sorry that you only remember the idiots, but I can't do anything about them.
As a driver, I just LOVE it when I'm traveling on the through-street and a high-speed biker comes to the stop sign on an intersecting road. Stop? Of course not. Blow through the stop sign at full speed, get halfway into the intersection, and then lay the bike over to the right and turn onto the street I'm on.
Well, first I'm never 'high speed', second, well, there's a reason I said non-idiot bikers. I also signal, though I hope you know how to recognize those.
Roughly speaking, I take my turn in the queue like everybody else, which means that if you're stopping for me(assuming you're not overly paranoid), you would have had to stop anyways. Making me stop first only forces you to stop longer.
And then there's the ones who are actually crossing the street I'm on, and instead of stopping at the stop sign until the through-traffic clears, they jog over into the crosswalk and pretend they are pedestrians -- forcing everyone on the through street to slam on the brakes to stop for them.
You have pedestrian crossings at stop signs? Strange. I've used pedestrian crossings at stop lights before - I'm just too small and light to trip the automatics, and sometimes it's safer for me to walk my bike across, so yeah, I'll use the button.
Sharing the road means both sides have to share. You have to do things you don't want to do for the safety of everyone, just like I have to.
And you're engaging on a rant, basically saying that bicyclists do things that I don't do. Well, there's a reason I mentioned 'idiots'. I know they're out there. I was just saying how I worth things to keep myself safe* while minimizing the hassle for everyone. Remember how I mentioned 'opening'. That means that you aren't about to go through the intersection, because if you are, that means I'm slowing down a touch to go behind you.
*Let's face it, I'm not much of a threat to anybody in a car.
But why should bikers treat stop signs as yields? That seems dangerous and unnecessary.
The important part is 'seems'. When I'm bicycling, it's important to realize that my maximum speed is much lower, so I'm approaching the stop at a lower speed, giving me more time to assess the intersection(not to mention relatively short stopping distance). Even my acceleration is effectively less, so it takes longer to get through the intersection from a stop.
The net effect is that a non-idiot bicyclist will assess an intersection even as he approaches it. Assuming that it's not a blind intersection where you don't have sight lines for on-coming traffic(in which case stopping is a smart idea anyways), allowing me to treat it as a yield sign allows me to 'time' my speed and approach to maximize my velocity through the intersection through an opening, while still maintaining full safety. If the intersection is busy, well, then I stop, just like you stop at a yield sign if it's not clear.
Plus, well, not making me stop all the time encourages me to bicycle more, which is good for the environment, health, and various other things.
But in both of these cases, they're rare enough that they really don't need to figure into the equations.
The problem is 'right now'. Right now, I'm just in favor of jacking up the gasoline tax as a sort of subsidy for efficiency, and to encourage EV use. Once they start reaching, say, 10% of the cars on the road, you're going to have to come up with something, and it's probably best to have that figured out now, rather than later.
It would take much longer than 5 minutes for an employee of DMV to come to my house, break into my garage, and read my odometer.
In my area you'd have to replace said employees quite often. Breaking into garages in my area would result in quite a few occupational deaths & injuries.;)
The insurance costs would be insane.
That being said, London has passed a congestion tax that they enforce via the use of cameras and automatic license plate recognition. So that system could be used for 'congestion' taxes. Mile taxes could be charged by requiring you to report your mileage somehow. Either during a vehicle inspection, or switching to reporting to the DMV for the meter to be checked.
Why do they waste money re-laying asphalt roads every few years? That's a huge waste of money lining the pockets of road contractors.
If you run the actual numbers it evens out. Where I grew up we had a lot of asphalt covered concrete roads. The reason for this isn't that it's a waste of money, but that grinding up and relaying asphalt is relatively dirt cheap compared to redoing concrete - such that even if you have to do it 5 times as often it's still cheaper than concrete. The concrete base provides the support, the asphalt seals and protects the concrete.
Even installs - it takes a couple weeks to do several miles of concrete road, but you can do the same miles in a single day to do it with asphalt. So while you have to close the road more often to do the asphalt work, the road is actually open more.
Agreed. Don't forget about all those batteries that will need disposing of in the near future.Agreed. Don't forget about all those batteries that will need disposing of in the near future.
Don't you mean recycling? They're 100% recyclable. Also generally I define 'near future' as 'less than 5 years', and right now they're being rated at more than a decade for EVs.
You have the AC on a couple switches. If the 'Expensive power' flag isn't set, it cools to, say, 72F. If the expensive power flag is set, then it only cools to 75F. The idea being that the house typically takes longer to reach 75F when the power is expensive than the typical expensive power duration.
There's still a lot that can be done. My grandparents had their pool on a system that allowed the power company to turn it off for periods of time. They got a discount for this. My parents had a timer on their water heater - it was big enough that they could still have a hot shower even with it off, again, only for limited periods, but they got a cut in their bill. Same with AC systems and many other big power suckers that aren't precisely 'on demand'.
Increase the discount by a touch and more people will take the power companies up on those offers.
I remember reading a case, I think it was in Reader's Digest, where a Lawyer was 'touring' through small towns, then suing their main streets(more precisely, all the businesses on said main street) for ADA violations, doing much the same as presented in this article.
Despite being in a wheelchair, I believe he did end up being disbarred from the practice. What happened to him is that he did it enough that the towns found each other, formed a group, and basically caught the dude lying. As a lawyer representing himself, what could be considered 'mistakes' added up to him not doing 'due diligence'.
For example, he sued a hardware store for not having a wheelchair ramp. Yet said hardware store had had such a ramp for decades before he came by. Once this was noticed, they started going through his claims, collated from the various lawsuits, and started noting up discrepancies. For example, him suing a store for not being accessible inside - when the store had been closed when he supposedly visited due to illness by the owner/operator. Basically, they figured out that he stayed in the hotel for a couple days, then sued everybody on the street, without having actually attempted to patronize their business. A number of businesses actually had accommodations for him - he would have simply had to ask, which is very much allowed under the ADA.
This is the problem with placing monetary valuation on any object or service; value is in the eye of the beholder, and that includes the value of money itself.
That's why everything ends up being estimates, but with something like a wheelbarrow there's a number of stores you can get a wheelbarrow in, so you end up with a standard price for wheelbarrows, which is the general range where the person who needs a wheelbarrow can count on being able to buy one, and where a person with a wheelbarrow can count on selling it.
So you might 'value' your wheelbarrow at $100, but if the price of wheelbarrows actually traded is around $50, that indicates that you're not looking to sell. If a dude values his at $20, but can sell it at $50, he's probably going to adjust his valuation to ~$50 and sell it at that price.
So the guy with 50 wheelbarrows values them at ~$2500 and puts that on his value sheet. He might value them a bit more, but if he went to liquidate or had to replace the wheelbarrows(theft, natural disaster, accident), that's what they'd be worth.
The idea is that with a large company, unless you have systematic errors, it should be 'pretty' correct in most companies, despite the individual value of things like 'name brand', IP, and such being hard to estimate correctly.
Right. It's been rare in recent decades for even individual companies to sell for less than their asset value, for precisely the reason you mention: that nearly any functioning business is worth more than the sum of its assets.
Part of the deal with this, I believe, is that if a company has a Q-value of less than one it's a prime indication that it would be worth more broken up, and is thus a prime target for corporate sharks to come in and liquidate it, dissolving the company or selling the remnants to suckers after having sucked the worth out of the company.
A q-value of less than 1 is an indication of a company that's NOT efficient with it's assets.
I think that depends on the subway. Property taxes already go towards paying for the road in front of most houses, for example, because there's not enough traffic for gasoline taxes(for example) to pay for the upkeep.
In a city where the roads can't keep up, paying at least for the subway transitway makes some sense. The extra transport capacity helps bring customers and employees to the work site. To put it another way, in properly situated sites adjusting things for the extra car traffic would be even more expensive.
Another factor you might not be considering is the marginal cost per passenger is quite small for rail(most forms of transit, really). You can run into a situation where if the trains were full, you wouldn't need to subsidize them even at low fare levels, yet at high fare levels you won't get enough passengers, so the rate of subsidization actually remains pretty constant. But by setting fairs low you actually move more people that way.
In a lot of cases, our rail travel sucks because there's just not enough of it. With enough investment - straightening routes allowing higher speeds, to actually useful destinations, we could make it a lot more prevalent, and safer/cheaper/more environmentally friendly to everybody.
The idea being that you're a lot more likely to take a 200mph train that can actually get you to work faster than driving. And because there's so many people like you, the train's reasonably full and thus profitable.
Concrete longevity has a LOT to do with preparation and maintenance.
For example tree roots - proper subsurface preparation, which isn't normally done for sidewalks, will result in roots not extending far under the concrete, and even if they do penetrate somewhat, not growing large enough to crack the concrete. Failing that, routine maintenance with certain products will kill the roots before they get too large, but leave the rest of the tree unaffected.
As for your questions - 1. It will probably only fix any given crack spot once. 2. 99% of the fixes will be practically microscopic in nature. 3. At the depths we're looking at, restoring a barrier is a bigger deal than being structural. 4. Most of the time the very cracking releases the stress that caused the crack, then water gets in and freezes, widening it. This keeps the water out(after the bacteria do their job).
They mostly remove the safety equipment that's redundant in a Tesla battery pack. Normally they pack a thermal fuse that kills the battery if it overheats or experiences sufficient current overflow.
If you think that everyone that has a hand in reviewing or providing comments at the request of the author on a paper should be listed as sources or authors you don't know anything about how scientific papers work.
If you think this then you misunderstood what I said. Last paper I wrote went through about a dozen different people.
However, if they received information, and not just the usual constructive criticism, then the person should be cited. Merely having males review the paper doesn't mean that a male viewpoint has been considered in said paper, which is what I was trying to get at.
He didn't say that they, must be of a higher quality. He said that it's a possibility that shouldn't be ignored. You can't just assume it's not true.
Finishing up a 300 level statistics course at the moment, and this fits right in with it.
You have the 'null hypothesis', which is what you're trying to reject/not reject. So 'Women's papers are just as good as the Men's' is, crudely speaking, a valid null hypothesis. You do all your math and you either reject it(p=.95), or fail to reject it(insufficient evidence say that they aren't). Other options include Men's papers being better, or women's being better.
And the crazy thing is, they did consult with male colleagues before publishing.
If they did so and didn't cite such in their paper, then they're bad at writing papers. If they did cite such, then he's a bad reviewer.
Then there's my usual answer - you generally get things like this when two assholes meet. So they might of written what he saw as a biased paper and reacted poorly.
1. They don't need their streets torn up. My area is finally getting natural gas, and the 4" pipe is larger than what fiber needs. They're just pushing the pipe through, they can do that with the fiber.
I just wish that I had been around when this was proposed to suggest that as long as they're at it, run fiber with the NG pipe...
If only they could come to the conclusion that they could build a fiber network first in a city that doesn't have any at all. But that would just make too much sense.
Yeah, but the power company building a fiber network shows that there's *demand* in that city!/snark
Let's be honest. It can often be a bit of a stretch to see how any particular CS class or concept impacts society in a way that seems meaningful.
Same can be said for most engineering work. Anyways, what I was trying to get at is that making it look 'more socially meaningful' in order to attract women means that it would, at least theoretically, attract more men as well, because we care about that stuff as well.
I just had this/exact/ conversation with my wife. She said that the idea presented in this op-Ed is condescending (speaking a civil engineer herself). She said "what, women engineers just aren't getting enough hugs?"
Indeed. I found the op's bit '"An experience here at the University of California, Berkeley, where I teach, suggests that if the content of the work itself is made more societally meaningful, women will enroll in droves," writes Nilsson.' to be incredibly sexist in a number of ways. 1. Implies that women are more interested in 'socially meaningful' work 2. Implies, by correlation, that men aren't. 3. That the current engineering work isn't 'socially meaningful', Oh, and news lady, Berkeley isn't 'normal'.
Oh, and it's not her fault, but remember that at this point men are highly outnumbered at most universities by women. They're the minority, not women.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you were arguing that all bicyclists should get special treatment under vehicle law by making stop signs into yields for you, based on your personal manner of riding. Turning stops into yields does NOT minimize the hassle for everyone, as I've already explained.
Actually, the problem as you describe is that bicyclists are treating the signs as though they don't exist. They're not treating them as yield signs, they're ignoring them. Changing the law to allow riders to treat stop signs as yield signs would STILL have the described behavior be a violation.
That's a lie. If I ran over you because you blew the stop sign and failed to make the turn you could have easily made at a slower speed, it would go on my driving record, it would impact my insurance rates, and the trial would cost me a lot of money and time. I might even feel a bit of remorse over the accident, but that depends on how many bikers who want special privileges I've talked to recently.
*sigh* That's still nothing compared to being, you know, dead. I'm not much of a physical threat to you.
Also, I was taught when I was growing up that the laws of physics trump the laws of man - IE it's not a good idea to engage in behavior where I'm likely to be run over by a non-careful driver, even if I'd be technically in the correct(and them liable) by the law. I'd rather not be run over, thank you very much. ;)
Second, the traffic laws aren't there just so you aren't a danger to drivers. Pedestrians are involved, and you are a significant danger to them.
... How? Of course, I don't live in an area with significant numbers of them. I avoid them just like I avoid cars. I'm continuously scanning for things to avoid, pedestrians are easy. Well, unless the crowd is too thick, but again, at that point I'm either riding elsewhere or walking.
On the generic tact, I'd think we'd see a lot more injury reports if cyclists were indeed a significant danger to pedestrians.
If you want to argue for a change, you need to admit and accept that your personal habits are irrelevant, just as my personal driving habits are when talking about changed to motor vehicle laws.
Well, you'll actually need to prove that the law is effective then, I guess. Because as you've mentioned, it's being completely non-followed right now. Having the cops enforce being not stupid for a bit might be more effective than trying to keep pushing 'stop means stop! Because bicyclists are ignoring stop signs and risking me run over them!'. I've already told you I'm not going into the intersection if I'm at risk of you running me over. I know quite a few riders that way. I'm sorry that you only remember the idiots, but I can't do anything about them.
As a driver, I just LOVE it when I'm traveling on the through-street and a high-speed biker comes to the stop sign on an intersecting road. Stop? Of course not. Blow through the stop sign at full speed, get halfway into the intersection, and then lay the bike over to the right and turn onto the street I'm on.
Well, first I'm never 'high speed', second, well, there's a reason I said non-idiot bikers. I also signal, though I hope you know how to recognize those.
Roughly speaking, I take my turn in the queue like everybody else, which means that if you're stopping for me(assuming you're not overly paranoid), you would have had to stop anyways. Making me stop first only forces you to stop longer.
And then there's the ones who are actually crossing the street I'm on, and instead of stopping at the stop sign until the through-traffic clears, they jog over into the crosswalk and pretend they are pedestrians -- forcing everyone on the through street to slam on the brakes to stop for them.
You have pedestrian crossings at stop signs? Strange. I've used pedestrian crossings at stop lights before - I'm just too small and light to trip the automatics, and sometimes it's safer for me to walk my bike across, so yeah, I'll use the button.
Sharing the road means both sides have to share. You have to do things you don't want to do for the safety of everyone, just like I have to.
And you're engaging on a rant, basically saying that bicyclists do things that I don't do. Well, there's a reason I mentioned 'idiots'. I know they're out there. I was just saying how I worth things to keep myself safe* while minimizing the hassle for everyone. Remember how I mentioned 'opening'. That means that you aren't about to go through the intersection, because if you are, that means I'm slowing down a touch to go behind you.
*Let's face it, I'm not much of a threat to anybody in a car.
But why should bikers treat stop signs as yields? That seems dangerous and unnecessary.
The important part is 'seems'. When I'm bicycling, it's important to realize that my maximum speed is much lower, so I'm approaching the stop at a lower speed, giving me more time to assess the intersection(not to mention relatively short stopping distance). Even my acceleration is effectively less, so it takes longer to get through the intersection from a stop.
The net effect is that a non-idiot bicyclist will assess an intersection even as he approaches it. Assuming that it's not a blind intersection where you don't have sight lines for on-coming traffic(in which case stopping is a smart idea anyways), allowing me to treat it as a yield sign allows me to 'time' my speed and approach to maximize my velocity through the intersection through an opening, while still maintaining full safety. If the intersection is busy, well, then I stop, just like you stop at a yield sign if it's not clear.
Plus, well, not making me stop all the time encourages me to bicycle more, which is good for the environment, health, and various other things.
4600 pounds for a Model S.
However, consider that a competitor, a BMW 7 series runs 4350 pounds.
A couple passengers worth of weight isn't that big of a difference.
But in both of these cases, they're rare enough that they really don't need to figure into the equations.
The problem is 'right now'. Right now, I'm just in favor of jacking up the gasoline tax as a sort of subsidy for efficiency, and to encourage EV use. Once they start reaching, say, 10% of the cars on the road, you're going to have to come up with something, and it's probably best to have that figured out now, rather than later.
It would take much longer than 5 minutes for an employee of DMV to come to my house, break into my garage, and read my odometer.
In my area you'd have to replace said employees quite often. Breaking into garages in my area would result in quite a few occupational deaths & injuries. ;)
The insurance costs would be insane.
That being said, London has passed a congestion tax that they enforce via the use of cameras and automatic license plate recognition. So that system could be used for 'congestion' taxes. Mile taxes could be charged by requiring you to report your mileage somehow. Either during a vehicle inspection, or switching to reporting to the DMV for the meter to be checked.
Why do they waste money re-laying asphalt roads every few years? That's a huge waste of money lining the pockets of road contractors.
If you run the actual numbers it evens out. Where I grew up we had a lot of asphalt covered concrete roads. The reason for this isn't that it's a waste of money, but that grinding up and relaying asphalt is relatively dirt cheap compared to redoing concrete - such that even if you have to do it 5 times as often it's still cheaper than concrete. The concrete base provides the support, the asphalt seals and protects the concrete.
Even installs - it takes a couple weeks to do several miles of concrete road, but you can do the same miles in a single day to do it with asphalt. So while you have to close the road more often to do the asphalt work, the road is actually open more.
Agreed. Don't forget about all those batteries that will need disposing of in the near future.Agreed. Don't forget about all those batteries that will need disposing of in the near future.
Don't you mean recycling? They're 100% recyclable. Also generally I define 'near future' as 'less than 5 years', and right now they're being rated at more than a decade for EVs.
You have the AC on a couple switches. If the 'Expensive power' flag isn't set, it cools to, say, 72F. If the expensive power flag is set, then it only cools to 75F. The idea being that the house typically takes longer to reach 75F when the power is expensive than the typical expensive power duration.
Perfectly doable with a well insulated house.
There's still a lot that can be done. My grandparents had their pool on a system that allowed the power company to turn it off for periods of time. They got a discount for this. My parents had a timer on their water heater - it was big enough that they could still have a hot shower even with it off, again, only for limited periods, but they got a cut in their bill. Same with AC systems and many other big power suckers that aren't precisely 'on demand'.
Increase the discount by a touch and more people will take the power companies up on those offers.
I remember reading a case, I think it was in Reader's Digest, where a Lawyer was 'touring' through small towns, then suing their main streets(more precisely, all the businesses on said main street) for ADA violations, doing much the same as presented in this article.
Despite being in a wheelchair, I believe he did end up being disbarred from the practice. What happened to him is that he did it enough that the towns found each other, formed a group, and basically caught the dude lying. As a lawyer representing himself, what could be considered 'mistakes' added up to him not doing 'due diligence'.
For example, he sued a hardware store for not having a wheelchair ramp. Yet said hardware store had had such a ramp for decades before he came by. Once this was noticed, they started going through his claims, collated from the various lawsuits, and started noting up discrepancies. For example, him suing a store for not being accessible inside - when the store had been closed when he supposedly visited due to illness by the owner/operator. Basically, they figured out that he stayed in the hotel for a couple days, then sued everybody on the street, without having actually attempted to patronize their business. A number of businesses actually had accommodations for him - he would have simply had to ask, which is very much allowed under the ADA.
This is the problem with placing monetary valuation on any object or service; value is in the eye of the beholder, and that includes the value of money itself.
That's why everything ends up being estimates, but with something like a wheelbarrow there's a number of stores you can get a wheelbarrow in, so you end up with a standard price for wheelbarrows, which is the general range where the person who needs a wheelbarrow can count on being able to buy one, and where a person with a wheelbarrow can count on selling it.
So you might 'value' your wheelbarrow at $100, but if the price of wheelbarrows actually traded is around $50, that indicates that you're not looking to sell. If a dude values his at $20, but can sell it at $50, he's probably going to adjust his valuation to ~$50 and sell it at that price.
So the guy with 50 wheelbarrows values them at ~$2500 and puts that on his value sheet. He might value them a bit more, but if he went to liquidate or had to replace the wheelbarrows(theft, natural disaster, accident), that's what they'd be worth.
The idea is that with a large company, unless you have systematic errors, it should be 'pretty' correct in most companies, despite the individual value of things like 'name brand', IP, and such being hard to estimate correctly.
Right. It's been rare in recent decades for even individual companies to sell for less than their asset value, for precisely the reason you mention: that nearly any functioning business is worth more than the sum of its assets.
Part of the deal with this, I believe, is that if a company has a Q-value of less than one it's a prime indication that it would be worth more broken up, and is thus a prime target for corporate sharks to come in and liquidate it, dissolving the company or selling the remnants to suckers after having sucked the worth out of the company.
A q-value of less than 1 is an indication of a company that's NOT efficient with it's assets.
I think that depends on the subway. Property taxes already go towards paying for the road in front of most houses, for example, because there's not enough traffic for gasoline taxes(for example) to pay for the upkeep.
In a city where the roads can't keep up, paying at least for the subway transitway makes some sense. The extra transport capacity helps bring customers and employees to the work site. To put it another way, in properly situated sites adjusting things for the extra car traffic would be even more expensive.
Another factor you might not be considering is the marginal cost per passenger is quite small for rail(most forms of transit, really). You can run into a situation where if the trains were full, you wouldn't need to subsidize them even at low fare levels, yet at high fare levels you won't get enough passengers, so the rate of subsidization actually remains pretty constant. But by setting fairs low you actually move more people that way.
In a lot of cases, our rail travel sucks because there's just not enough of it. With enough investment - straightening routes allowing higher speeds, to actually useful destinations, we could make it a lot more prevalent, and safer/cheaper/more environmentally friendly to everybody.
The idea being that you're a lot more likely to take a 200mph train that can actually get you to work faster than driving. And because there's so many people like you, the train's reasonably full and thus profitable.
CZ75BD IWB
The first aid kit & fire extinguisher are kept in the truck.
Great! Where do I mail the chicken?
Concrete longevity has a LOT to do with preparation and maintenance.
For example tree roots - proper subsurface preparation, which isn't normally done for sidewalks, will result in roots not extending far under the concrete, and even if they do penetrate somewhat, not growing large enough to crack the concrete. Failing that, routine maintenance with certain products will kill the roots before they get too large, but leave the rest of the tree unaffected.
As for your questions -
1. It will probably only fix any given crack spot once.
2. 99% of the fixes will be practically microscopic in nature.
3. At the depths we're looking at, restoring a barrier is a bigger deal than being structural.
4. Most of the time the very cracking releases the stress that caused the crack, then water gets in and freezes, widening it. This keeps the water out(after the bacteria do their job).
They mostly remove the safety equipment that's redundant in a Tesla battery pack. Normally they pack a thermal fuse that kills the battery if it overheats or experiences sufficient current overflow.
If you think that everyone that has a hand in reviewing or providing comments at the request of the author on a paper should be listed as sources or authors you don't know anything about how scientific papers work.
If you think this then you misunderstood what I said. Last paper I wrote went through about a dozen different people.
However, if they received information, and not just the usual constructive criticism, then the person should be cited. Merely having males review the paper doesn't mean that a male viewpoint has been considered in said paper, which is what I was trying to get at.
He didn't say that they, must be of a higher quality. He said that it's a possibility that shouldn't be ignored. You can't just assume it's not true.
Finishing up a 300 level statistics course at the moment, and this fits right in with it.
You have the 'null hypothesis', which is what you're trying to reject/not reject. So 'Women's papers are just as good as the Men's' is, crudely speaking, a valid null hypothesis. You do all your math and you either reject it(p=.95), or fail to reject it(insufficient evidence say that they aren't). Other options include Men's papers being better, or women's being better.
And the crazy thing is, they did consult with male colleagues before publishing.
If they did so and didn't cite such in their paper, then they're bad at writing papers. If they did cite such, then he's a bad reviewer.
Then there's my usual answer - you generally get things like this when two assholes meet. So they might of written what he saw as a biased paper and reacted poorly.
1. They don't need their streets torn up. My area is finally getting natural gas, and the 4" pipe is larger than what fiber needs. They're just pushing the pipe through, they can do that with the fiber.
I just wish that I had been around when this was proposed to suggest that as long as they're at it, run fiber with the NG pipe...
If only they could come to the conclusion that they could build a fiber network first in a city that doesn't have any at all. But that would just make too much sense.
Yeah, but the power company building a fiber network shows that there's *demand* in that city! /snark
Let's be honest. It can often be a bit of a stretch to see how any particular CS class or concept impacts society in a way that seems meaningful.
Same can be said for most engineering work. Anyways, what I was trying to get at is that making it look 'more socially meaningful' in order to attract women means that it would, at least theoretically, attract more men as well, because we care about that stuff as well.
I just had this /exact/ conversation with my wife. She said that the idea presented in this op-Ed is condescending (speaking a civil engineer herself). She said "what, women engineers just aren't getting enough hugs?"
Indeed. I found the op's bit '"An experience here at the University of California, Berkeley, where I teach, suggests that if the content of the work itself is made more societally meaningful, women will enroll in droves," writes Nilsson.' to be incredibly sexist in a number of ways.
1. Implies that women are more interested in 'socially meaningful' work
2. Implies, by correlation, that men aren't.
3. That the current engineering work isn't 'socially meaningful',
Oh, and news lady, Berkeley isn't 'normal'.
Oh, and it's not her fault, but remember that at this point men are highly outnumbered at most universities by women. They're the minority, not women.