I hate it when I am pushed to the sidewalk. Road bikes belong on the road, not on sidewalks dodging curbs and poles and pedestrians and running into cars emerging from blind allies or nailed when crossing streets. In my area there's ramps that lead from the bike lane up to the sidewalk around traffic circles, and it drives me nuts because I have almost been hit a couple times using those sidewalks, but I have never had a problem going through the circle like a car, and it is 3x faster. It is MUCH safer to be in the road, and much faster, and it's even safer when there is a bike lane.
DOOM was the shit because you could turn off every letter and number and punch zombies in the face and you'd be dead in like 10 seconds just like in real life.
True it's not miraculous. It's really pretty good stuff though. Cotton production uses something like 5% of agricultural land and huge amounts of pesticides (some of which are not used for edible plants, which I think is telling). Flax (linen) is good too, and can make nicer fabric, but hemp is stronger (because of longer fibers) and higher-yielding. Really, the fiber length of hemp is a great property. I think the main reason hemp would not displace cotton is the inertia of industry, not commerce or environmental considerations.
I thought about this a lot while reading through old Russian novels (pre-revolution). It seemed to me that people actually had a lot of respect for civil servants and would have accepted medals or awards instead of money. Now leaders just walk the revolving door, and it's 100% about the $$$.
Even if it only made 0.0001% nitric oxide and some kind of catalytic converter caught 95% of that, it would still destroy the environment faster than fossil fuels.
And that's if none of the ammonia ever escaped from vehicles, let alone the industrial production and transport.
I don't think that vehicles fueled by ammonia would be better for the environment than fossil fuels. This could be true if we didn't make mistakes or none of our vehicles ever leaked anything. But thousands of vehicles loaded with gallons of toxic gas cannot be safe, let alone the waste and by-products, both in manufacture and consumption. I'm not sure if huge increases in acid rain would be nicer than global warming. I'll grant it's not as bad as hydrazine.
How about we reuse all the fixed nitrogen we already made instead? Right now water in Toledo, Ohio is undrinkable because of algae blooms in Lake Eerie. I'm sure we use a lot of energy in the Haber process, but I think that's a trivial concern compared to the environmental problems we can cause if we keep pumping organic nitrogen into the environment. It could turn out to be a very very bad thing to do overall. I think we'd be way better off if we reduced ammonia production, rather than switching to a more efficient way to make ammonia. I'm all for innovation generally, but to me, this idea reeks.
These different patterns all exist for motors. 3-phase simplifies the design and deployment of induction motors used in industry. That is all. There's not a substantial difference between the efficiency or simplicity of various AC output formats. The various phases exist for historical reasons.
I thought of the solution!
Just be a good person and work hard wherever you live. That way, you, your kids, and your friends won't want to move to a fuck-all overcrowded megapolis and scratch out a living in a hyper-competitve environment just to try to 'get ahead'. Simple. No more parking problems.
According to Dan Koeppel in his book linked here, Banana: The Fate of the Fruit That Changed the World
there are scores of species and varieties of bananas. Many have annoying seeds, but many also have large amounts of vitamin A, and Koeppel discusses the fact that on some islands these are a major source of vitamin A for the populace. So, I'm not dead-set against GMOs, but why should anyone take the risks (even if they are low), when we could instead merely introduce more cultivars already bearing copious amounts of vitamin A, and let the best one win? This would not only avoid the whole GMO issue, but it would also introduce new flavors, and may reduce the chances of the plants from being wiped out by Panama disease or black sigatoka, which threaten bananas mainly because likely every banana you've ever eaten is genetically identical, which usually predisposes a population to diseases, if you didn't know.
I have not followed this topic very closely, but I think this is a sufficiently specific question with a sufficiently complicated answer to be worth asking: because people have to make large purchases I'm sure there's names involved, so will these transactions de-anonymize Bitcoin to a great extent? I understand agencies can already track specific blockchains if they really feel the need, but I wonder if this will make it much easier.
I couldn't find a full copy of Melville B. Nimmer, “National Security Secrets v. Free Speech: The Issues Left Undecided in the Ellsberg Case", but for anyone who wants to dig in, here's a link to a preview of the article in jstor. It says you can sign up for free and you get to rent articles for 14 days.
Except they're all turning into cartels. Classic example: Ma Bell was all busted up, and step by step all the baby Bells got permission to unite with their little neighbors, and now we have a few corporations that have divided the phone service into market segments, all of which have Bell heritage. Some markets, like say grocery stores and many emerging products, definitely still compete, but wherever there's big money, increasingly there is collusion and shell-game competition. Cheers for Elon Musk, though.
On the one hand, the rational thinker in me says that sending ships to other places, where machinery will make humans, might be the only way that humans ever get out of here. OTOH, I want to see another planet with my own eyes. So, I think this is a good idea, but it makes me sad.
You can trash the US all you want, but there are a limited number of countries in the world that would even allow a conference like Def Con or Black Hat.
Maybe the US allows these kinds of activities because there's so much power here that it's not perceived as much of a threat. I doubt that things will be so free and open here when we use up all of our natural wealth.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate it when I am pushed to the sidewalk. Road bikes belong on the road, not on sidewalks dodging curbs and poles and pedestrians and running into cars emerging from blind allies or nailed when crossing streets. In my area there's ramps that lead from the bike lane up to the sidewalk around traffic circles, and it drives me nuts because I have almost been hit a couple times using those sidewalks, but I have never had a problem going through the circle like a car, and it is 3x faster. It is MUCH safer to be in the road, and much faster, and it's even safer when there is a bike lane.
DOOM was the shit because you could turn off every letter and number and punch zombies in the face and you'd be dead in like 10 seconds just like in real life.
This is a great mental image.
True it's not miraculous. It's really pretty good stuff though. Cotton production uses something like 5% of agricultural land and huge amounts of pesticides (some of which are not used for edible plants, which I think is telling). Flax (linen) is good too, and can make nicer fabric, but hemp is stronger (because of longer fibers) and higher-yielding. Really, the fiber length of hemp is a great property. I think the main reason hemp would not displace cotton is the inertia of industry, not commerce or environmental considerations.
I think a better car analogy would be, "Look, freeways just came into existence, but you need a faster car than your model T."
I thought about this a lot while reading through old Russian novels (pre-revolution). It seemed to me that people actually had a lot of respect for civil servants and would have accepted medals or awards instead of money. Now leaders just walk the revolving door, and it's 100% about the $$$.
Even if it only made 0.0001% nitric oxide and some kind of catalytic converter caught 95% of that, it would still destroy the environment faster than fossil fuels. And that's if none of the ammonia ever escaped from vehicles, let alone the industrial production and transport.
I don't think that vehicles fueled by ammonia would be better for the environment than fossil fuels. This could be true if we didn't make mistakes or none of our vehicles ever leaked anything. But thousands of vehicles loaded with gallons of toxic gas cannot be safe, let alone the waste and by-products, both in manufacture and consumption. I'm not sure if huge increases in acid rain would be nicer than global warming. I'll grant it's not as bad as hydrazine.
How about we reuse all the fixed nitrogen we already made instead? Right now water in Toledo, Ohio is undrinkable because of algae blooms in Lake Eerie. I'm sure we use a lot of energy in the Haber process, but I think that's a trivial concern compared to the environmental problems we can cause if we keep pumping organic nitrogen into the environment. It could turn out to be a very very bad thing to do overall. I think we'd be way better off if we reduced ammonia production, rather than switching to a more efficient way to make ammonia. I'm all for innovation generally, but to me, this idea reeks.
Write an AI in Lisp.
These different patterns all exist for motors. 3-phase simplifies the design and deployment of induction motors used in industry. That is all. There's not a substantial difference between the efficiency or simplicity of various AC output formats. The various phases exist for historical reasons.
Haskell is hypothetically Turing complete, because of lazy evaluation.
I thought of the solution!
Just be a good person and work hard wherever you live. That way, you, your kids, and your friends won't want to move to a fuck-all overcrowded megapolis and scratch out a living in a hyper-competitve environment just to try to 'get ahead'. Simple. No more parking problems.
According to Dan Koeppel in his book linked here, Banana: The Fate of the Fruit That Changed the World there are scores of species and varieties of bananas. Many have annoying seeds, but many also have large amounts of vitamin A, and Koeppel discusses the fact that on some islands these are a major source of vitamin A for the populace. So, I'm not dead-set against GMOs, but why should anyone take the risks (even if they are low), when we could instead merely introduce more cultivars already bearing copious amounts of vitamin A, and let the best one win? This would not only avoid the whole GMO issue, but it would also introduce new flavors, and may reduce the chances of the plants from being wiped out by Panama disease or black sigatoka, which threaten bananas mainly because likely every banana you've ever eaten is genetically identical, which usually predisposes a population to diseases, if you didn't know.
I have not followed this topic very closely, but I think this is a sufficiently specific question with a sufficiently complicated answer to be worth asking: because people have to make large purchases I'm sure there's names involved, so will these transactions de-anonymize Bitcoin to a great extent? I understand agencies can already track specific blockchains if they really feel the need, but I wonder if this will make it much easier.
This. To be good at being rational you must practice somehow.
How did this comment get modded -1? It has a thesis and some data. Maybe someone doesn't agree, but that's no reason for a neg mod.
It's just like saying "the speed of a shadow is infinite"
I couldn't find a full copy of Melville B. Nimmer, “National Security Secrets v. Free Speech: The Issues Left Undecided in the Ellsberg Case", but for anyone who wants to dig in, here's a link to a preview of the article in jstor. It says you can sign up for free and you get to rent articles for 14 days.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/...
and can pretty easily be displaced
Except they're all turning into cartels. Classic example: Ma Bell was all busted up, and step by step all the baby Bells got permission to unite with their little neighbors, and now we have a few corporations that have divided the phone service into market segments, all of which have Bell heritage. Some markets, like say grocery stores and many emerging products, definitely still compete, but wherever there's big money, increasingly there is collusion and shell-game competition. Cheers for Elon Musk, though.
that companies, like people, need to take responsibility for their actions
On the one hand, the rational thinker in me says that sending ships to other places, where machinery will make humans, might be the only way that humans ever get out of here. OTOH, I want to see another planet with my own eyes. So, I think this is a good idea, but it makes me sad.
You can trash the US all you want, but there are a limited number of countries in the world that would even allow a conference like Def Con or Black Hat.
Maybe the US allows these kinds of activities because there's so much power here that it's not perceived as much of a threat. I doubt that things will be so free and open here when we use up all of our natural wealth.
late-because-panda-ate-steering-column
It's sensationalism for nerds.
New /. motto