Shooters party, pirate party and KAP, now i need to make a decision! Good thing we have preferential voting, looks like i'm going to have to number below the line for the table cloth vote.
Reminds me of game reviews, when they're a score out of 10, they rarely venture below 5, and average is 5/10. Beats me why have such a huge scale in this clock, only to use a tiny portion of it, when i first heard about it, and how it has only ever been at the "imminent danger" end of the scale, it became quickly obvious that it was completely meaningless.
But the warranty laws in Australia compel the shop to handle the warranty, you are meant to take it back to the place of purchase. For most electronic goods, the retailer really can't do anything, so that's why they have manufacturers warranty, that's all arranged outside what the law allows, but no one worries, because a defective product gets fixed and the customer should be satisfied. The law also allows some reasonable leniency with entry level gear, as it does examine that in "fit for purpose" you buy premium goods, you should expect premium performance, but buy bottom rung, you should expect performance which isn't as good.
Fit for purpose also means that one could also chase up products which are defective by design, not just a production anomaly. One could argue that if something is unreasonably fragile.
I suspected this might happen, i suppose now the wowsers will get their way, MA15+ games will now be rated R18+. But i suppose because there won't be any mass shooting sprees in Australia in the near future, or medium future, then it must have been a success! [/stupidity]
Yep, i done goofed up. The paper says that approximately 90% of murderers have felony records, a statistic that apparently has been consistent since about the 1890's, and they are people who are denied firearms anyway. It doesn't give a statistic on how many knew each other due to criminal involvement, it just said that it was the most common. I think it's also pertinent to show that according to one paper, a history of violence was present in over 95% of cases, and "90% of all the family homicides were preceded by previous disturbances at the same address,
with a median of 5 calls per address.”
It's all written up in section "III. DO ORDINARY PEOPLE MURDER?" of the paper i linked earlier.
Something like 90% of murders, the two people know each other because because of previous criminal involvement with each other. If you can be bothered to educate yourself, here's a paper from the harvard journal of law and public policy which has a section dealing with those claims. Click Here for PDF
In Australia after law changes banning semi-automatic firearms, suicide with a firearm fell somewhat, but suicide by any method just followed the trend, indicating method substitution. It's clear that having a firearm doesn't change suicidal tendencies, and this conjecture that firearms are more deadly and therefore suicides are more likely to occur is completely unproven and not backed with any evidence at all.
It's a two fold problem, if the fuel map is incapable of adjusting to provide a proper stoichiometric mixture, then you will have a lean mixture. This makes combustion hotter, which increases possibilities of detonation. Timing can be adjusted to alleviate this if the vehicle has a knock sensor, but another drawback of lean mixtures is that the NOx emissions go up. Knock doesn't wear out engines, it actually damages them.
As for the corrosion due to a 5% increase in ethanol, i think you're off the planet, even straight ethanol won't melt the rubber and make lines corrode immediately, petrol is already a good at dissolving rubber, this is just laughable because it's so wrong.
There are advantages to burning ethanol, but like anything, it's a compromise, unless you are a mechanical engineer, you wouldn't have much chance of understanding them. From a hot rodders juvenile point of view, ethanol seems crap, but the main reasons why there's research and a slight shift towards ethanol is that it's better at reducing emissions. This is very important, because the car industry has to adhere to emissions, not high horsepower demands, so a whole team of engineers spend hundreds of man hours tuning a factory engine for optimal performance, whilst adhering to set laws governing the emissions. It's easy for car hoons to know nothing about this, and while they know how an engine works, and sound knowledgeable about engines, they're completely oblivious to the science behind it, with aspects of thermodynamics and what is actually going on in an engine, they just have empirical experience, which counts for very little when you start venturing into the unknown.
Article is pretty bad, of course people know, it's just that no one can say it without boring non-technical people to death. Sounds like this article was written by those pommie top gear clowns, as soon as anything technical related is mentioned, they cut it out and proclaim it dark mysterious magic!
I think the problem will probably be that the fuel map won't be made to cater for a 15% blend, issue with ethanol is that the stoichiometric mixture requires more fuel relative to mass than hydrocarbon gasoline, since the car can't identify the fuel, and it either sticks to a predetermined fuel map, or uses O2 sensors to adjust, i'm not sure what they'd have selected to do, and i'm not sure what by product gasses you get when you have lean alcohols (being oxygen, hydrogen and carbon). With that said, if the mixture isn't made stoichiometric, then you will be down on power and NOx emissions will go up, which the latter is probably why manufacturers state not to use higher mixtures of ethanol.
I doubt the engine or other parts would suffer any damage, aluminium doesn't like alcohols, corrodes with them, but i don't think 15% is high enough to cause problems, still, and rubber parts might not last as long if in contact with ethanol, but again, just as before, upping the concentration to 15% won't has serious and immediate effects. Valve and cylinder head issues is completely wrong, all cars made to run unleaded have hardened valve seats and valves as it was the tetraethyl lead that reduced wear in those parts, with that being long gone, manufacturers have been making the engines withstand unleaded, this remain unchanged with ethanol mixes.
The real drawback with ethanol is that the energy density is about two thirds of ordinary hydrocarbon gasoline, which means operating with stoichiometric mixtures, ethanol engines won't be significantly changed with power, but to do the same amount of work, will consume a higher volume of fuel as opposed to gasoline engines. So from a simple cost benefit point of view, 1 unit of ethanol is worth two thirds of straight, unadulterated gasoline, therefore to get your money's worth, 15% ethanol should be approximately 1.7% cheaper than 10% ethanol, and 5% cheaper against straight gasoline.
Don't forget that politicians also want to appear to be doing something. It's much easier to address the perception than the reality. I think this is a mental health issue, not any other issue.
There may be evidence that certain people with mental illness may be predisposed to violence from films and games, but it's sketchy, other studies have found that those mediums don't make the general population violent. I've also read an article which suggested that ritalin may be something that causes this, as it's a side effect that ritalin can cause aggression, but in the article it was largely unsubstantiated.
18? Citation needed! From my rudimentary searching i can't even find 18 massacres by any method for that period. Since the gun ban, there was the monash shooting, but since only two people died, it's not officially considered a massacre, but five others were injured, i think that counts for something, because it still is a random shooting spree, the intent was there, to discount it is misleading. We've also had very deadly cases with arson, and a few years ago a man killed a whole family of 5 by bludgeoning them to death (iirc).
Also, the stats are misleading, because none of the changes are attributable to the gun buyback, all the trends started around the mid to late 1980's. You can read this paper to see, it's from some academics at uni of melbourne. pdf of the paper
In short, the gun buyback was a very expensive endeavour to achieve nothing.
Although i have firearms, and am quite pro ownership in a country which has somewhat strict laws (australia). those statistics don't paint a full image without indicating the magnitude of each of those murders. I am curious because i don't really know, but from what the media leads me to think, that while firearms may not be the most deadliest in an incident, it is probably the most numerous.
The australian gun control advocates, though, keep on using dodgy statistics in any case, to justify the gun buyback we had over 15 years ago. The reality is, it has done no noticeable effect, except for one, suicide with a firearm did drop, but overall suicides didn't, so the gun control advocates just use the one statistic. Maybe one could argue that drops in gun suicides reduces the risk of mass killings, but i think this is a mental health issue, and especially how the media broadcasts these occurrences, any attention seeking fruitcake is going to go down that path.
As a student of UTS, it doesn't really live up to its name, it's like any of the other universities in australia, they do all the normal courses, it doesn't do anything particularly different to the other universities to really justify the "technology" name. With that said, i think the system is a white elephant, considering the amount of use it's going to get, and the preference for online materials by students; I don't think it's a good way to spend money. If anything, i think it's going to be a method to determine what books aren't required, and what to get rid of, as when books sit on a shelf, the university has no idea whether students actually use the books, students can use them without borrowing them, but, with this system, you will have to call every book. It will be cumbersome to have a look at anything potentially interesting in the section, as each book will probably have to be requested, whereas, at least on a shelf, you can have a look at numerous things, flick through, go to the next one.
Motives always apply in business decisions, let the old maxim cui bono apply, (translates; "to whose benefit"), and you'll usually see why things happen, the way they happen. Original post, in my opinion, is correct, and i think hanlons razor is too forgiving in the corporate world.
Who's benefitting from this? It's not the palestinians, that's for sure, and it appears that forever the israelis are looking for a pretext at war with iran. It maintains the perception that poor little israel are the victims, and palestinians are the terrorists, so that israel can subdue the palestinians and maintain the apartheid, and keep on building new settlements.
All they need to do acknowledge that Israel is a legitimate nation..
But herein lies the problem, a catch 22, if they acknowledge that israel is a legitimate nation, then they lose their claim to their territory. It's kind of hard for palestinians to ackowledge legitimacy of israel, when israel wants to swallow up all of the palestinian territory.
For a nation cobbled together on the proviso of a group of people having nowhere to go when being persecuted, this situation is tragically ironic!
How do you know they haven't sent in agent provocateurs? Their spy powers are pretty good, they keep on finding hamas people (and the whole family as well) in their homes when they bomb the house. The mossad is a very effective spy force, they've done heaps of black ops in the past, and i have a suspicion that this may be an effective way to "legally" murder people, spark controversy and all the while, appear like the victim, by guiding gullible hamas people into making the first visible attack.
Slashdot Mirror
Nonexistent mod points to you sir!
I thought weird al yankovic nailed the white person wannabe song White and Nerdy!
Shooters party, pirate party and KAP, now i need to make a decision! Good thing we have preferential voting, looks like i'm going to have to number below the line for the table cloth vote.
Reminds me of game reviews, when they're a score out of 10, they rarely venture below 5, and average is 5/10. Beats me why have such a huge scale in this clock, only to use a tiny portion of it, when i first heard about it, and how it has only ever been at the "imminent danger" end of the scale, it became quickly obvious that it was completely meaningless.
But the warranty laws in Australia compel the shop to handle the warranty, you are meant to take it back to the place of purchase. For most electronic goods, the retailer really can't do anything, so that's why they have manufacturers warranty, that's all arranged outside what the law allows, but no one worries, because a defective product gets fixed and the customer should be satisfied. The law also allows some reasonable leniency with entry level gear, as it does examine that in "fit for purpose" you buy premium goods, you should expect premium performance, but buy bottom rung, you should expect performance which isn't as good.
Fit for purpose also means that one could also chase up products which are defective by design, not just a production anomaly. One could argue that if something is unreasonably fragile.
I suspected this might happen, i suppose now the wowsers will get their way, MA15+ games will now be rated R18+. But i suppose because there won't be any mass shooting sprees in Australia in the near future, or medium future, then it must have been a success! [/stupidity]
Yep, i done goofed up. The paper says that approximately 90% of murderers have felony records, a statistic that apparently has been consistent since about the 1890's, and they are people who are denied firearms anyway. It doesn't give a statistic on how many knew each other due to criminal involvement, it just said that it was the most common. I think it's also pertinent to show that according to one paper, a history of violence was present in over 95% of cases, and "90% of all the family homicides were preceded by previous disturbances at the same address, with a median of 5 calls per address.”
It's all written up in section "III. DO ORDINARY PEOPLE MURDER?" of the paper i linked earlier.
That's unscientific conjecture!
Something like 90% of murders, the two people know each other because because of previous criminal involvement with each other. If you can be bothered to educate yourself, here's a paper from the harvard journal of law and public policy which has a section dealing with those claims. Click Here for PDF
In Australia after law changes banning semi-automatic firearms, suicide with a firearm fell somewhat, but suicide by any method just followed the trend, indicating method substitution. It's clear that having a firearm doesn't change suicidal tendencies, and this conjecture that firearms are more deadly and therefore suicides are more likely to occur is completely unproven and not backed with any evidence at all.
It's a two fold problem, if the fuel map is incapable of adjusting to provide a proper stoichiometric mixture, then you will have a lean mixture. This makes combustion hotter, which increases possibilities of detonation. Timing can be adjusted to alleviate this if the vehicle has a knock sensor, but another drawback of lean mixtures is that the NOx emissions go up. Knock doesn't wear out engines, it actually damages them.
As for the corrosion due to a 5% increase in ethanol, i think you're off the planet, even straight ethanol won't melt the rubber and make lines corrode immediately, petrol is already a good at dissolving rubber, this is just laughable because it's so wrong.
There are advantages to burning ethanol, but like anything, it's a compromise, unless you are a mechanical engineer, you wouldn't have much chance of understanding them. From a hot rodders juvenile point of view, ethanol seems crap, but the main reasons why there's research and a slight shift towards ethanol is that it's better at reducing emissions. This is very important, because the car industry has to adhere to emissions, not high horsepower demands, so a whole team of engineers spend hundreds of man hours tuning a factory engine for optimal performance, whilst adhering to set laws governing the emissions. It's easy for car hoons to know nothing about this, and while they know how an engine works, and sound knowledgeable about engines, they're completely oblivious to the science behind it, with aspects of thermodynamics and what is actually going on in an engine, they just have empirical experience, which counts for very little when you start venturing into the unknown.
Article is pretty bad, of course people know, it's just that no one can say it without boring non-technical people to death. Sounds like this article was written by those pommie top gear clowns, as soon as anything technical related is mentioned, they cut it out and proclaim it dark mysterious magic!
I think the problem will probably be that the fuel map won't be made to cater for a 15% blend, issue with ethanol is that the stoichiometric mixture requires more fuel relative to mass than hydrocarbon gasoline, since the car can't identify the fuel, and it either sticks to a predetermined fuel map, or uses O2 sensors to adjust, i'm not sure what they'd have selected to do, and i'm not sure what by product gasses you get when you have lean alcohols (being oxygen, hydrogen and carbon). With that said, if the mixture isn't made stoichiometric, then you will be down on power and NOx emissions will go up, which the latter is probably why manufacturers state not to use higher mixtures of ethanol.
I doubt the engine or other parts would suffer any damage, aluminium doesn't like alcohols, corrodes with them, but i don't think 15% is high enough to cause problems, still, and rubber parts might not last as long if in contact with ethanol, but again, just as before, upping the concentration to 15% won't has serious and immediate effects. Valve and cylinder head issues is completely wrong, all cars made to run unleaded have hardened valve seats and valves as it was the tetraethyl lead that reduced wear in those parts, with that being long gone, manufacturers have been making the engines withstand unleaded, this remain unchanged with ethanol mixes.
The real drawback with ethanol is that the energy density is about two thirds of ordinary hydrocarbon gasoline, which means operating with stoichiometric mixtures, ethanol engines won't be significantly changed with power, but to do the same amount of work, will consume a higher volume of fuel as opposed to gasoline engines. So from a simple cost benefit point of view, 1 unit of ethanol is worth two thirds of straight, unadulterated gasoline, therefore to get your money's worth, 15% ethanol should be approximately 1.7% cheaper than 10% ethanol, and 5% cheaper against straight gasoline.
"My new computer came with windows 7. Windows 7 is much more user friendly than Windows Vista. I don't like that!" - Sheldon Cooper
Don't forget that politicians also want to appear to be doing something. It's much easier to address the perception than the reality. I think this is a mental health issue, not any other issue.
There may be evidence that certain people with mental illness may be predisposed to violence from films and games, but it's sketchy, other studies have found that those mediums don't make the general population violent. I've also read an article which suggested that ritalin may be something that causes this, as it's a side effect that ritalin can cause aggression, but in the article it was largely unsubstantiated.
18? Citation needed! From my rudimentary searching i can't even find 18 massacres by any method for that period. Since the gun ban, there was the monash shooting, but since only two people died, it's not officially considered a massacre, but five others were injured, i think that counts for something, because it still is a random shooting spree, the intent was there, to discount it is misleading. We've also had very deadly cases with arson, and a few years ago a man killed a whole family of 5 by bludgeoning them to death (iirc).
Also, the stats are misleading, because none of the changes are attributable to the gun buyback, all the trends started around the mid to late 1980's. You can read this paper to see, it's from some academics at uni of melbourne. pdf of the paper
In short, the gun buyback was a very expensive endeavour to achieve nothing.
Even the jewish schools in australia have armed guards.
Something isn't right here.
lol
Today's reality is that the only thing preventing a military takeover is the moral qualms of the officers in charge.
That's why they're trained to follow orders, and not think!
Although i have firearms, and am quite pro ownership in a country which has somewhat strict laws (australia). those statistics don't paint a full image without indicating the magnitude of each of those murders. I am curious because i don't really know, but from what the media leads me to think, that while firearms may not be the most deadliest in an incident, it is probably the most numerous.
The australian gun control advocates, though, keep on using dodgy statistics in any case, to justify the gun buyback we had over 15 years ago. The reality is, it has done no noticeable effect, except for one, suicide with a firearm did drop, but overall suicides didn't, so the gun control advocates just use the one statistic. Maybe one could argue that drops in gun suicides reduces the risk of mass killings, but i think this is a mental health issue, and especially how the media broadcasts these occurrences, any attention seeking fruitcake is going to go down that path.
The terrible irony behind this is, that crane fell on the new engineering building, under construction...
As a student of UTS, it doesn't really live up to its name, it's like any of the other universities in australia, they do all the normal courses, it doesn't do anything particularly different to the other universities to really justify the "technology" name. With that said, i think the system is a white elephant, considering the amount of use it's going to get, and the preference for online materials by students; I don't think it's a good way to spend money. If anything, i think it's going to be a method to determine what books aren't required, and what to get rid of, as when books sit on a shelf, the university has no idea whether students actually use the books, students can use them without borrowing them, but, with this system, you will have to call every book. It will be cumbersome to have a look at anything potentially interesting in the section, as each book will probably have to be requested, whereas, at least on a shelf, you can have a look at numerous things, flick through, go to the next one.
Motives always apply in business decisions, let the old maxim cui bono apply, (translates; "to whose benefit"), and you'll usually see why things happen, the way they happen. Original post, in my opinion, is correct, and i think hanlons razor is too forgiving in the corporate world.
Who's benefitting from this? It's not the palestinians, that's for sure, and it appears that forever the israelis are looking for a pretext at war with iran. It maintains the perception that poor little israel are the victims, and palestinians are the terrorists, so that israel can subdue the palestinians and maintain the apartheid, and keep on building new settlements.
All they need to do acknowledge that Israel is a legitimate nation..
But herein lies the problem, a catch 22, if they acknowledge that israel is a legitimate nation, then they lose their claim to their territory. It's kind of hard for palestinians to ackowledge legitimacy of israel, when israel wants to swallow up all of the palestinian territory.
For a nation cobbled together on the proviso of a group of people having nowhere to go when being persecuted, this situation is tragically ironic!
How do you know they haven't sent in agent provocateurs? Their spy powers are pretty good, they keep on finding hamas people (and the whole family as well) in their homes when they bomb the house. The mossad is a very effective spy force, they've done heaps of black ops in the past, and i have a suspicion that this may be an effective way to "legally" murder people, spark controversy and all the while, appear like the victim, by guiding gullible hamas people into making the first visible attack.
I'm sure the palastinians would like to be left alone...
I'm now starting to think that developer or engineer in the context of software probably are interchangeable.