To give a fair estimate (ie: I havent looked this up) we can assume 10-15% (And really I think that percentage number is far too high...) makes up the rest of power types, like solar and wind.) that means 45% total in renewable resources, leaving 55% for things like coal and natural gas.
Or, instead of guessing you could spend two minutes and get a definitive answer. From here: "North America generated 4,556 terawatthours of electricity in 2000, of which 46 percent was coal-fired, 18 percent nuclear, 14 percent natural gas, 15 percent hydroelectric, 5 percent oil, and 2 percent "renewable energy and other.""
So, for all my sarcasm your estimates weren't far wrong.
Desensitized would be if I enjoyed watching real people fly out of car windshields.
That wouldn't be desensitized that would be sick. Desensitized means that you no longer react to something that you could reasonably be expected to react to. For example, if you didn't react with horror or at least alarm at seeing someone thrown through the windshield of a car. If you enjoy seeing that sort of thing you are certainly reacting - just not in the "acceptable" way.
There is a difference when you know it's fake though. Just because you don't reacting to seeing a mockup doesn't mean you desensitized. However familiarity with a fake situation can still densensitize you to the real thing.
Maybe, but I have a feeling that FLAC may be a pretty high proportion of that Ogg share. They mentioned that almost all the Ogg sharing was via BitTorrent which implies large file sizes - full albums encoded via FLAC fit the bill. And I know FLAC enjoys a reasonable following among audiophiles. What I don't know is what proportion of FLAC users use Ogg as the container.
I seriously, seriously doubt you could make another picture which appears untampered, that still loads as a picture with the exact same characteristics, looks the same (to a human), has the same MD5 as an existing picture and without tell tale signs such as garbage chunks or whatnot to fool the hasher.
That's not the point though. The point is that having a photo and a matching MD5 doesn't prove that the photo is legitimate. If you're in a position to change the photo you are probably also in a position to change the MD5.
speeding causes an unnecessary amount of exhaust fumes, which costs lives.
But speed limits are not set with the emissions profile of the vehicles in mind. If they were then they'd be the same everywhere. And if they were then they would have been increasing as vehicles emissions have come down. The fact is speed limits are arbitrary. The only argument for sticking to a particular limit is simply that it is illegal not to, and if you're arguing for that then I expect to hear that you've never failed to stop for a stop sign, or stayed too long in a parking stop, or pirated a song or some software.
My point is that a blanket statement like "running a web site isn't considered distribution by copyright either" is not accurate. Even when you're talking about the implementation of some application via the web, e.g. Javascript code on a webpage is certainly covered by copyright.
12.3% of MUSIC transfers, which is 11.34% of all traffic -- so Ogg makes up 1.4% of all P2P traffic. Which ain't bad at all, but is nowhere near 12.3
It's worse than that. The article (and summary) say that Ogg is 12.3% of music, but they don't mention Vorbis. Either the submittor or the editor has decided that Ogg = Vorbis and put that in the title. But at least some of that Ogg traffic will be FLAC.
but somehow, putting a CD with an "experimental Gentoo" Release on it into my computer sounds just as fascinating and fun as open hearth surgery in nanibia or landing a space shuttle with chocolade heathshields...
Oh, I don't know. I'm kind of fascinated about just what "open hearth surgey" and "heathshields" are.
Google's probably still a better example - the pro-Google people seem to like all of Google's products much like the pro-Apple people seem to like everything Apple does (I'm generalizing of course).
You don't get it. That's only because we currently use base10 numbers. For example, suppose you want to multiply 12-base10 by 4-base10. You claim this is inconvenient because it comes to 48-base10. But in base-12 numbering, it would be 40. 12-base10 is written as 10. So then, of course, one Gross, or 144-base10, is 100-base12.
My point (which I admit I didn't clearly make) is that base 12 and base 60 systems are useful in certain situations (which involve more division than multiplication) but a general change to exclusive use of those systems is a ridiculous proposal. For a start you will have to throw away the multiplication tables that virtually every educated person over the age of 8 has in their brains. What's 5x7? Now it's 2B. We don't even have digits for 10 base 12 and 11 base 12. How quickly can you multiply in base 12 compared to base 10?
The more integer divisors your base has, the easier it is to do division without going into fractions.
So what? Do you really think people would have big problems because 100/3 is 33 1/3 and not a whole number? Do you really think people would struggle with dividing 10 by 4?
Don't push for getting rid of base 60 time, push to change our number system to base 12.
Don't be stupid. 12 and 60 are great for division, but they're not as good for multiplication. In the case of time division is probably more common than multiplication but that doesn't apply in most domains.
Has it occurred to anyone that we might be able to use this as a source of hydrogen for a hydrogen economy???
What did you think the first line of the summary was refering to? "When/. discussed a story about microbes that could break down water as a hydrogen source,..."
You're not thinkingly like a marketing department. You're thinking "this is a bad reason to delay release", when you should be thinking "this is an excuse for a release that's going to be delayed because the product is not ready".
NASA should have listened to the Russians. The Soviet Union built and launched a space shuttle. It was a copy of our shuttle but in their defence the Apollo was a copy of the Soviet Union's first rockets. Ths Buran only flew one time and the Russians said it was too expensive. Note that there is a difference between "too expensive" and "we don't have enough money"
You're horribly distorting the situation. First, Buran was only a copy in terms of aerodynamics, which makes sense: NASA did a good job there. Second, Buran was considered too expensive in the context of a country with a failing economy. It's hard to justify any sort of space program when you're in the situation the USSR was in at the time. You said it yourself: there is a difference between "too expensive" and "we don't have enough money". For Buran it was the later, not the former (as you seem to believe).
Actually it says "I'm Mozilla 4.0 compatible, and I'm actually MSIE". So again, how is that concealing it's identity? I know it's not done the way it should be according to the RFC. I don't care about that. I want you to justify your claim that IE conceals it's identity.
Ah, I see. How likely is it for the boundary layer transition to occur as early as mach 19? And obviously the position of the protruding gap fillers is a critical factor in all this - do you know whether the position in this case is a major concern?
Actually, I start my programming projects by writing all the comments first; in this way, I get the pseudo-code ideas down and write the associated code under each comment. It helps me track where I am in a class/function, what I'm trying to accomplish (what parts still need to be written), and it nicely leaves an understandable trail without having to back-fill the code with comments once the project is "done."
The danger of this approach is that you have to be careful not to end up with comments which just replicate what the code says (eg. width++;// increment the width). With a high level language there usually isn't a great deal of difference between psuedo code and actual implementation.
Wrong, the "Mozilla/4.0" at the beginning of the IE UA is nothing more than spoofing Netscape's old UAS, and adding (compatible, mybrowsername) doesn't make it any better.
The Mozilla Foundation is the only one supposed to use the "Mozilla/x.y" UAS, anyone else using it is spoofing, case closed.
You're technically correct, but that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter what the spec says, what matters is how it's done in the real world. The fact is IE identifies itself with a particular string that happens to start with Mozilla/4.0. It's not trying to conceal it's identity, it was just a poor implementation decision.
Slashdot Mirror
About 10 million years, according to this comment.
So, for all my sarcasm your estimates weren't far wrong.
There is a difference when you know it's fake though. Just because you don't reacting to seeing a mockup doesn't mean you desensitized. However familiarity with a fake situation can still densensitize you to the real thing.
That graph can also be interpreted as showing a 0.4 degree rise in the last 20 years.
Maybe, but I have a feeling that FLAC may be a pretty high proportion of that Ogg share. They mentioned that almost all the Ogg sharing was via BitTorrent which implies large file sizes - full albums encoded via FLAC fit the bill. And I know FLAC enjoys a reasonable following among audiophiles. What I don't know is what proportion of FLAC users use Ogg as the container.
My point is that a blanket statement like "running a web site isn't considered distribution by copyright either" is not accurate. Even when you're talking about the implementation of some application via the web, e.g. Javascript code on a webpage is certainly covered by copyright.
Google's probably still a better example - the pro-Google people seem to like all of Google's products much like the pro-Apple people seem to like everything Apple does (I'm generalizing of course).
You're not thinkingly like a marketing department. You're thinking "this is a bad reason to delay release", when you should be thinking "this is an excuse for a release that's going to be delayed because the product is not ready".
Actually it says "I'm Mozilla 4.0 compatible, and I'm actually MSIE". So again, how is that concealing it's identity? I know it's not done the way it should be according to the RFC. I don't care about that. I want you to justify your claim that IE conceals it's identity.
Ah, I see. How likely is it for the boundary layer transition to occur as early as mach 19? And obviously the position of the protruding gap fillers is a critical factor in all this - do you know whether the position in this case is a major concern?