'Stupid' is not just a matter of low intelligence. It's also a subject of cognitive biases and undisciplined thinking.
For a good example, look at Ben Carson, one of the Republican candidates. He has spouted a steam of policy positions that most people would regard as stupid: He suggested abolishing all taxes in favor of a fixed 10% income 'tithe' because that is what the bible specifies, he said that homosexuality must be a choice because people turn gay in prison, and he has claimed that the affordable care act enslaves people to the government. But is he stupid? Certainly not: Before going into politics he was a neurosurgeon, and a very good one too, one actively involved in research and responsible for developing new procedures. He is literally a brain surgeon.
What Carson shows is that it's quite possible for a person to be of brilliant intelligence, but still come to hold positions that are quite obviously ridiculous. Humans are not logical creatures by nature: Their minds are the product of a process that optimized for reproductive success. A cobbled-together tangle of heuristics.
The 7400s stayed in use for a long time in education, as they were a lot more durable than their CMOS counterparts in the 4000s. TTL doesn't die if you handle it without antistatic precautions.
That describes power management support in general. ACPI implementations are especially infamous. Server hardware aside, often manufacturers design for and test on Windows alone, because that is what they ship with the hardware and that is what they expect every user to run. They don't meet the ACPI standard properly, just the parts that Windows implements. Then someone tries to run another OS, and the whole thing crashes at some point - if it'll boot at all.
Pirates do not fear prison, because they know that their crime is so commonplace that their chance of being caught is very remote indeed. Why would the threat of a longer sentence change this?
I read politically skewed news sites for entertainment, and there are quite a few influential people on the political right who are calling for those rivers to be cut off entirely. They accuse the liberals of being filthy hippies who will sacrifice humans to save a few fish.
It's not just expensive per-unit, it has a really horrific capital cost to build the plant - and no politician wants to be responsible for increasing government spending.
Yes, they exist. Yes, they are still used. However, there are far fewer of them in use than there once were. This is because they do not work as well as they once did. TV detector vans worked by picking up either the leakage from the demodulator or the horizontal scanning signal - both of which were doable back in the CRT days. Modern TVs do not have a horizontal scanning coil, and they use lower-noise demodulators, so they cannot be detected. It wouldn't help if they could be, because the license is only needed for real-time viewing - in the heyday of the vans the only non-realtime use for a TV was watching VHS tapes. It is widely suspected by the general public that the few still in use are there more for intimidation than actual enforcement - knowing that such a thing exists gives a good reason to get a TV license, even if they don't actually work and are very few in number. There is a newer type of detector, which went into use in the 2000s, working in a very different way: If the operator sees the flickering light of a TV image projecting through a window they can use their detector to film it. A computer than analyses the changing intensity and color of the light and compares it against the many stations being broadcast to see if any of them match up. How well this works is unknown, as the enforcement process is very secretive. Prosecutions are also rare because the crime is: The TV license doesn't cost very much, and so almost everyone simply pays it.
Also, the FCC has no authority in Britain. Almost every appliance still meets FCC regulations anyway, as they are designed to be sold in both the US and throughout the EU with minimal design differences.
Microsoft were pursued by the DoJ once, for antitrust violations. The case ran for nine years, eventually ending in 2000. Microsoft lost, and a court ordered the company be broken into two separate divisions. Then Microsoft appealed, and the DoJ quickly changed position and reached a settlement whereby they would drop the case and Microsoft would get a slap-on-the-wrist penalty of no consequence.
There was a change of administration during the case, so it is highly likely there was political meddling - someone ordered the DoJ to knock it off and stop trying to destroy a company of great importance not only economically but strategically too.
You should be getting a result in watt-hours or joules. Depending on purpose - joules are used in engineering, watt-hours are a unit of convenience in usage calculations and billing.
'Greenwashing' refers to companies that make a big public show of being pro-environment, but without actually achieving this aim - instead focusing on publicity because the appearance of green can be a lot cheaper than being actually green.
A 'toy wind' turbine alone isn't greenwashing. It becomes greenwashing when you put it on your roof to show all your neighbors how much you care about the earth, then sit back and set the heating to maximum because you couldn't be bothered to insulate your walls properly, or when a shop puts an array of them on the roof to lure in eco-conscious customers without mentioning that the pinwheels only generate 1% of their lighting requirements.
The energy output of a wind turbine is proportional to the cross-sectional area, and to the cube of the wind speed*. This means that to provide a useful amount of energy they need to be big, and they need a lot of wind - that means a high mounting point. These little pinwheels on short poles are just a gimmick - you'd be lucky to get 20W from them on a very good windy day.
*Think about it. (m*v^2)/2 will get you half-way there.
As the NCSE says, "Science and research now show a wide range of harm caused by pornography, including direct links to increased demand for sex trafficking, child sexual exploitation and violence against women."
I am not inclined to trust in whatever research they refer to. I'd have to trawl through a lot of presentations to find an actual paper citation, but I suspect it will be from the type of organisation that has a statement of faith on their website.
Socrates was an ass. He was outrageously provocative, and when he managed to anger people enough to be put on trial he made a mockery of the legal process and deliberately forced a conviction and death sentence. He even turned down an offer of escape - his followers bribed prison guards to get him out, and he refused to follow. He got himself killed to prove a point.
The only accounts of the life of Jesus are the unreliable sources of the gospels, but they make it clear why Jesus got in legal trouble. Nothing to do with consorting with anyone: He was a popular Jewish preacher delivering fiery speeches to a Jewish population already on the verge of rebellion against the occupying Roman forces. A general troublemaker of dangerous charisma - the Romans wanted him gone because he could serve as a leader for a rebellion or urge the Jews to further actions of resistance.
It is always taken as true that children need to be 'protected.' There is an assumption that seeing pornography is destructive - and if you ask many, supremely destructive, to the point that it is compared to cocaine. No-one dares even raise the possibility that this assumption is false for fear of bring branded a pedophile-enabler.
Yet I've never actually seem some good evidence to support this assumption - no dependable studies that link moderate levels of porn exposure or viewing by minors (either 18, or actual children) to any form of psychological harm. You can find plenty of anecdotes, yes, but those are worthless.
The young adults of today grew up with the internet. They had ready access to porn - they could see it any time they wanted, and most will have seen a bit unintentionally. If pornography was one-tenth as destructive as some people claim then the public health implications would be clear right now, possibly in the form of daily porn-fueled orgies in the street.
if you want some amusing reading, try the website for the National Center on Sexual Exploitation. They used to be known as Morality in Media, but they rebranded a while ago because their previous name was a laughing stock and this new name sounds more respectable and politically-neutral. The name change is only superficial - the agenda and arguments haven't changed a bit, and they still spew a stream of hyperbole and scare tactics. Their current approach is to argue that viewing pornography fuels sex trafficking and violence against children. Somehow. They illustrate very nicely arguments of the modern anti-pornography movement.
The law is an abstract force. There can be courts, trials, legislation, police, diplomats and meetings. But what gives the law any existence at all is force or threat of force - and whoever controls the force, controls the law.
Slashdot Mirror
'Stupid' is not just a matter of low intelligence. It's also a subject of cognitive biases and undisciplined thinking.
For a good example, look at Ben Carson, one of the Republican candidates. He has spouted a steam of policy positions that most people would regard as stupid: He suggested abolishing all taxes in favor of a fixed 10% income 'tithe' because that is what the bible specifies, he said that homosexuality must be a choice because people turn gay in prison, and he has claimed that the affordable care act enslaves people to the government. But is he stupid? Certainly not: Before going into politics he was a neurosurgeon, and a very good one too, one actively involved in research and responsible for developing new procedures. He is literally a brain surgeon.
What Carson shows is that it's quite possible for a person to be of brilliant intelligence, but still come to hold positions that are quite obviously ridiculous. Humans are not logical creatures by nature: Their minds are the product of a process that optimized for reproductive success. A cobbled-together tangle of heuristics.
The 7400s stayed in use for a long time in education, as they were a lot more durable than their CMOS counterparts in the 4000s. TTL doesn't die if you handle it without antistatic precautions.
That describes power management support in general. ACPI implementations are especially infamous. Server hardware aside, often manufacturers design for and test on Windows alone, because that is what they ship with the hardware and that is what they expect every user to run. They don't meet the ACPI standard properly, just the parts that Windows implements. Then someone tries to run another OS, and the whole thing crashes at some point - if it'll boot at all.
Pirates do not fear prison, because they know that their crime is so commonplace that their chance of being caught is very remote indeed. Why would the threat of a longer sentence change this?
I read politically skewed news sites for entertainment, and there are quite a few influential people on the political right who are calling for those rivers to be cut off entirely. They accuse the liberals of being filthy hippies who will sacrifice humans to save a few fish.
It's not just expensive per-unit, it has a really horrific capital cost to build the plant - and no politician wants to be responsible for increasing government spending.
Property is a legal construct. Some property is more constructed than others.
How many symptoms are real, and how many imagined by people in fear?
I'll answer that, as a brit electronics geek.
Yes, they exist.
Yes, they are still used.
However, there are far fewer of them in use than there once were.
This is because they do not work as well as they once did. TV detector vans worked by picking up either the leakage from the demodulator or the horizontal scanning signal - both of which were doable back in the CRT days. Modern TVs do not have a horizontal scanning coil, and they use lower-noise demodulators, so they cannot be detected. It wouldn't help if they could be, because the license is only needed for real-time viewing - in the heyday of the vans the only non-realtime use for a TV was watching VHS tapes.
It is widely suspected by the general public that the few still in use are there more for intimidation than actual enforcement - knowing that such a thing exists gives a good reason to get a TV license, even if they don't actually work and are very few in number.
There is a newer type of detector, which went into use in the 2000s, working in a very different way: If the operator sees the flickering light of a TV image projecting through a window they can use their detector to film it. A computer than analyses the changing intensity and color of the light and compares it against the many stations being broadcast to see if any of them match up. How well this works is unknown, as the enforcement process is very secretive. Prosecutions are also rare because the crime is: The TV license doesn't cost very much, and so almost everyone simply pays it.
Also, the FCC has no authority in Britain. Almost every appliance still meets FCC regulations anyway, as they are designed to be sold in both the US and throughout the EU with minimal design differences.
It just has to be equal to a human driver - and human drivers are not that good.
Microsoft were pursued by the DoJ once, for antitrust violations. The case ran for nine years, eventually ending in 2000. Microsoft lost, and a court ordered the company be broken into two separate divisions. Then Microsoft appealed, and the DoJ quickly changed position and reached a settlement whereby they would drop the case and Microsoft would get a slap-on-the-wrist penalty of no consequence.
There was a change of administration during the case, so it is highly likely there was political meddling - someone ordered the DoJ to knock it off and stop trying to destroy a company of great importance not only economically but strategically too.
They lie.
You are getting your units wrong. Very wrong.
You should be getting a result in watt-hours or joules. Depending on purpose - joules are used in engineering, watt-hours are a unit of convenience in usage calculations and billing.
'Greenwashing' refers to companies that make a big public show of being pro-environment, but without actually achieving this aim - instead focusing on publicity because the appearance of green can be a lot cheaper than being actually green.
A 'toy wind' turbine alone isn't greenwashing. It becomes greenwashing when you put it on your roof to show all your neighbors how much you care about the earth, then sit back and set the heating to maximum because you couldn't be bothered to insulate your walls properly, or when a shop puts an array of them on the roof to lure in eco-conscious customers without mentioning that the pinwheels only generate 1% of their lighting requirements.
"Even a small turbine is still enough to deliver ~600W in a day" ...
Not even wrong.
The picture on the website shows it can be put on a transport platform and drawn around by a car. So it can be adapted as a caravan if you want to.
The energy output of a wind turbine is proportional to the cross-sectional area, and to the cube of the wind speed*. This means that to provide a useful amount of energy they need to be big, and they need a lot of wind - that means a high mounting point. These little pinwheels on short poles are just a gimmick - you'd be lucky to get 20W from them on a very good windy day.
*Think about it. (m*v^2)/2 will get you half-way there.
The electric wires are unsightly though, and require maintenance, and limit the height of vehicle that may operate on that stretch of road.
As the NCSE says, "Science and research now show a wide range of harm caused by pornography, including direct links to increased demand for sex trafficking, child sexual exploitation and violence against women."
I am not inclined to trust in whatever research they refer to. I'd have to trawl through a lot of presentations to find an actual paper citation, but I suspect it will be from the type of organisation that has a statement of faith on their website.
Socrates was an ass. He was outrageously provocative, and when he managed to anger people enough to be put on trial he made a mockery of the legal process and deliberately forced a conviction and death sentence. He even turned down an offer of escape - his followers bribed prison guards to get him out, and he refused to follow. He got himself killed to prove a point.
The only accounts of the life of Jesus are the unreliable sources of the gospels, but they make it clear why Jesus got in legal trouble. Nothing to do with consorting with anyone: He was a popular Jewish preacher delivering fiery speeches to a Jewish population already on the verge of rebellion against the occupying Roman forces. A general troublemaker of dangerous charisma - the Romans wanted him gone because he could serve as a leader for a rebellion or urge the Jews to further actions of resistance.
Because a conviction for violating some US secrecy law would make him a martyr. A conviction for rape is much better for destroying his legacy.
It is always taken as true that children need to be 'protected.' There is an assumption that seeing pornography is destructive - and if you ask many, supremely destructive, to the point that it is compared to cocaine. No-one dares even raise the possibility that this assumption is false for fear of bring branded a pedophile-enabler.
Yet I've never actually seem some good evidence to support this assumption - no dependable studies that link moderate levels of porn exposure or viewing by minors (either 18, or actual children) to any form of psychological harm. You can find plenty of anecdotes, yes, but those are worthless.
The young adults of today grew up with the internet. They had ready access to porn - they could see it any time they wanted, and most will have seen a bit unintentionally. If pornography was one-tenth as destructive as some people claim then the public health implications would be clear right now, possibly in the form of daily porn-fueled orgies in the street.
if you want some amusing reading, try the website for the National Center on Sexual Exploitation. They used to be known as Morality in Media, but they rebranded a while ago because their previous name was a laughing stock and this new name sounds more respectable and politically-neutral. The name change is only superficial - the agenda and arguments haven't changed a bit, and they still spew a stream of hyperbole and scare tactics. Their current approach is to argue that viewing pornography fuels sex trafficking and violence against children. Somehow. They illustrate very nicely arguments of the modern anti-pornography movement.
I have retroshare. I have porn. I will share.
The next step I expect would be a system for blocking websites that infringe copyright. Possibly by a streamlined court order process.
Russia has the men with guns in Crimea.
The law is an abstract force. There can be courts, trials, legislation, police, diplomats and meetings. But what gives the law any existence at all is force or threat of force - and whoever controls the force, controls the law.