He specifically referred to using the cosmetically-inferior items in processed foods, where its appearance isn't relevant. (Figuring out why cosmetic issues are relevant when the consumer is buying the item directly isn't tough to figure out.) Provided the number of ugly fruit is less than the number of fruit used to make processed foods, this would seem to be the most efficient way to use the fruit.
At a farmer's market, you can often buy the less visually-pleasing fruit as "seconds" at a discounted price.
Yes, except we use slightly different terms. Only the non-scientists need to calm down, though. Finding things you didn't expect is par for the course.
You're limited by the efficiency of the heat moving through the copper strap. You'd probably want a heat pipe. Even then, keep in mind that most heatsinks actually have quite a large surface area, so moving it to your case doesn't buy you much. (Assuming you're using the case-as-a-heatsink for thermal exchange. The case isn't really worthwhile as a thermal reservoir.) Heat pipes are great for moving heat to an easier-to-cool location, though -- which is what is often done with laptops.
It only appears to you as if scientists simply made up their minds because the seminal research in climatology significantly predates any public interest in climate change. Early data and models go back to at least the 30s, and a lot of major research was done around the 60s. So this is all well-researched old news that people suddenly have a strong interest in denying.
The problem is that scientists tend not to be particular receptive to people who espouse a strong opinion with no convincing facts or research who are challenging well-researched facts. It's not too surprising, as people with grossly uninformed scientific "ideas" are common and loud, and you'd never get much done if you were to spend time "addressing" them (a prospect that's often unlikely to work, as they've already decided upon their opinion). This is really your crowd of "global warming deniers" -- people who have no understanding of or interest in scientific research, who make claims that are well-known to be false, and approach science with a definite opinion and no factual data. And then, you have the people that think that the existence of this previous group means that there is legitimate debate and disagreement, that scientists are trying to suppress research, and that "healthy skepticism" is being left by the wayside.
Perhaps your hatred of the word "consensus" stems from confusing it with "in style", when they are really quite different.
String theory has never been "consensus" -- nothing close to it. You most certainly can get funding for "anti-GW" work. No serious scientific body will fund you if you pitch it as such, since you're declaring your conclusions before you do the research, but plenty of other groups will fund you regardless.
At one time, fairly recently, there was consensus that the universe's rate of expansion was decreasing; the only question is whether it would decrease asymptically to zero, decrease less than that, or decrease beyond zero.
That's simply not true. You are conflating "prevailing scientific theory" with "consensus". The former is simply "the best guess we have at this point", while the latter is substantially stronger. Any qualified physicist should tell you that the universe's expansion rate has not ever and still is not considered "consensus".
Very often here on slashdot I see the advice "Don't talk to the police. Get a lawyer." to which you'd get a comfy cell while waiting and they'd be sent to Gitmo for waterboarding.
No, honestly, that is not the result of refusing to talk to the police and asking for a lawyer. You're just paranoid, with delusions of 1984.
The power is fairly cheap, but the monitoring and maintenance aren't.
It's like US "information-gathering" capabilities. Say what you will about a new method of the FBI or NSA "watching you" -- on the large scale they're tightly constrained by the resources necessary to sift through data.
Your nonsensical writing style seems familiar. Have you sent unsolicited manuscripts to any university physics departments recently? We have a whole stack of nonsense papers in the lounge that I read from time to time.
Of course LIGO is right and good and should be honored for a valiant try despite no results, and M-M are wrong despite results (rarely replicable but a few times) because they were mistaken from the get go. Gravity waves from oscillating N dimensional strings make sense but waves in the ether don't and neither does different light speeds like the speed of light in a vacuum, let's call it c, or the speed of light in water, 0.98c, except different frequencies have different values in water. Anyway, Einstein was right, the speed of light is the same regardless. Einstein was still right even though LIGO got no results.
Criticisms of science who doesn't understand optics, much less basic relativity? Actually, he doesn't understand basic science, since he applies "makes sense" as if it's meaningful.
A problem with both is the directions -- both perpendicular to local gravity. They're looking for crosswise wind ripple effects on a waterfall. Build one with a vertical leg.
Interferometry isn't affected by static fields like local gravity. If it were, their sensitivity is so high that you'd see the local-gravity effect even though their equipment is "perpendicular" to Earth's gravity because their equipment is not perfectly perpendicular to Earth's gravity.
It's more like: sugar, carbohydrates, beans, vegetables, meat, fruit, fats, nuts, everything else. If vegetables aren't significantly cheaper than meat per serving, then you're buying the wrong vegetables at the wrong place. Beans are even more cost-effective: you can eat for something like $1/person/day if you like lentils, beans, rice, and corn.
If you get it by removing the same quantity of carbon from the air (which is what photosynthesis does), it's carbon-neutral. It's clean because it doesn't contain things other than methanol, and the combustion products of methanol are relatively harmless.
Detecting jailbreaking is fairly trivial unless the phone's storage has been destroyed. Immersion in liquids, on the other hand, can often be difficult to detect. Theoretical dried residue is not the same as reasonably detectable residue. (For that matter, a lot of Apple's cases are sturdy enough that the internals can certainly be the weak point in a fall, particularly if the fall is onto a somewhat soft surface.)
It's not being redirected to some search page that's the major problem. DNS is a lower-level function that the Web. Really what it's doing is replacing DNS responses indicating that a host or domain doesn't exist with a DNS response indicating that the host/domain is located at X IP address (the address of the search page). It doesn't know when it sends this response what the response will be used for. If it's for the web, you get the search page. Non-web applications will instead behave incorrectly or, at least, produce an incorrect error message.
In the US, companies are not people, but have many of the same rights as people. In other countries, for that matter, companies have sufficient rights to be harmed for the purposes of the law.
In law, financial damage is most certainly direct harm.
If you want to talk about "should be", you should make that clear. Rather than it actually being a victimless crime, you think it should be one. Completely different.
How is the only protocol affected HTTP? When a DNS query is made, it doesn't state what it's for -- regardless of the protocol to come, the DNS query is the same. Yet when an NX should be returned, a valid but incorrect response is returned. This is quite a significant difference.
It's not a victimless crime if the point of modding is enabling people to play pirated games. The game companies then are still victims. How damaging it is to the victims is not agreed on.
As far as health and safety, that's certainly hyperbole. Technically, though, a modified console could potentially expose the user to the system's laser and could potentially present an increased fire hazard (due to faulty wiring, soldering, etc. -- not the laser).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes -- watermelon is one of those examples where the market for ugly fruit is probably not too high.
He specifically referred to using the cosmetically-inferior items in processed foods, where its appearance isn't relevant. (Figuring out why cosmetic issues are relevant when the consumer is buying the item directly isn't tough to figure out.) Provided the number of ugly fruit is less than the number of fruit used to make processed foods, this would seem to be the most efficient way to use the fruit.
At a farmer's market, you can often buy the less visually-pleasing fruit as "seconds" at a discounted price.
It's not profitable to incarcerate, it's very expensive to incarcerate.
Yes, except we use slightly different terms. Only the non-scientists need to calm down, though. Finding things you didn't expect is par for the course.
You're limited by the efficiency of the heat moving through the copper strap. You'd probably want a heat pipe. Even then, keep in mind that most heatsinks actually have quite a large surface area, so moving it to your case doesn't buy you much. (Assuming you're using the case-as-a-heatsink for thermal exchange. The case isn't really worthwhile as a thermal reservoir.) Heat pipes are great for moving heat to an easier-to-cool location, though -- which is what is often done with laptops.
It only appears to you as if scientists simply made up their minds because the seminal research in climatology significantly predates any public interest in climate change. Early data and models go back to at least the 30s, and a lot of major research was done around the 60s. So this is all well-researched old news that people suddenly have a strong interest in denying.
The problem is that scientists tend not to be particular receptive to people who espouse a strong opinion with no convincing facts or research who are challenging well-researched facts. It's not too surprising, as people with grossly uninformed scientific "ideas" are common and loud, and you'd never get much done if you were to spend time "addressing" them (a prospect that's often unlikely to work, as they've already decided upon their opinion). This is really your crowd of "global warming deniers" -- people who have no understanding of or interest in scientific research, who make claims that are well-known to be false, and approach science with a definite opinion and no factual data. And then, you have the people that think that the existence of this previous group means that there is legitimate debate and disagreement, that scientists are trying to suppress research, and that "healthy skepticism" is being left by the wayside.
Perhaps your hatred of the word "consensus" stems from confusing it with "in style", when they are really quite different.
String theory has never been "consensus" -- nothing close to it. You most certainly can get funding for "anti-GW" work. No serious scientific body will fund you if you pitch it as such, since you're declaring your conclusions before you do the research, but plenty of other groups will fund you regardless.
At one time, fairly recently, there was consensus that the universe's rate of expansion was decreasing; the only question is whether it would decrease asymptically to zero, decrease less than that, or decrease beyond zero.
That's simply not true. You are conflating "prevailing scientific theory" with "consensus". The former is simply "the best guess we have at this point", while the latter is substantially stronger. Any qualified physicist should tell you that the universe's expansion rate has not ever and still is not considered "consensus".
Yes -- a fair comparison is to compare debt, deficit, or interest to tax receipts and other state income.
Very often here on slashdot I see the advice "Don't talk to the police. Get a lawyer." to which you'd get a comfy cell while waiting and they'd be sent to Gitmo for waterboarding.
No, honestly, that is not the result of refusing to talk to the police and asking for a lawyer. You're just paranoid, with delusions of 1984.
The power is fairly cheap, but the monitoring and maintenance aren't.
It's like US "information-gathering" capabilities. Say what you will about a new method of the FBI or NSA "watching you" -- on the large scale they're tightly constrained by the resources necessary to sift through data.
Your nonsensical writing style seems familiar. Have you sent unsolicited manuscripts to any university physics departments recently? We have a whole stack of nonsense papers in the lounge that I read from time to time.
Of course LIGO is right and good and should be honored for a valiant try despite no results, and M-M are wrong despite results (rarely replicable but a few times) because they were mistaken from the get go. Gravity waves from oscillating N dimensional strings make sense but waves in the ether don't and neither does different light speeds like the speed of light in a vacuum, let's call it c, or the speed of light in water, 0.98c, except different frequencies have different values in water. Anyway, Einstein was right, the speed of light is the same regardless. Einstein was still right even though LIGO got no results.
Criticisms of science who doesn't understand optics, much less basic relativity? Actually, he doesn't understand basic science, since he applies "makes sense" as if it's meaningful.
A problem with both is the directions -- both perpendicular to local gravity. They're looking for crosswise wind ripple effects on a waterfall. Build one with a vertical leg.
Interferometry isn't affected by static fields like local gravity. If it were, their sensitivity is so high that you'd see the local-gravity effect even though their equipment is "perpendicular" to Earth's gravity because their equipment is not perfectly perpendicular to Earth's gravity.
His identity is "Evan Ratliff". There, just like the judge!
It's more like: sugar, carbohydrates, beans, vegetables, meat, fruit, fats, nuts, everything else. If vegetables aren't significantly cheaper than meat per serving, then you're buying the wrong vegetables at the wrong place. Beans are even more cost-effective: you can eat for something like $1/person/day if you like lentils, beans, rice, and corn.
It actually makes more sense to always charge the same amount for a page, and choose a fee such that you manage to cover your costs.
The real problem is that to most incensed Libertarians assume the marginal cost should be the total cost. Apparently overhead does not exist.
On the other hand, the prison sentences for mooning, public urination, and ownership of manga are somewhat lighter than that for murder.
If you get it by removing the same quantity of carbon from the air (which is what photosynthesis does), it's carbon-neutral. It's clean because it doesn't contain things other than methanol, and the combustion products of methanol are relatively harmless.
You underestimate how much money they make, compared to their "donations". I doubt the donations are a very large portion at all.
Detecting jailbreaking is fairly trivial unless the phone's storage has been destroyed. Immersion in liquids, on the other hand, can often be difficult to detect. Theoretical dried residue is not the same as reasonably detectable residue. (For that matter, a lot of Apple's cases are sturdy enough that the internals can certainly be the weak point in a fall, particularly if the fall is onto a somewhat soft surface.)
It's not being redirected to some search page that's the major problem. DNS is a lower-level function that the Web. Really what it's doing is replacing DNS responses indicating that a host or domain doesn't exist with a DNS response indicating that the host/domain is located at X IP address (the address of the search page). It doesn't know when it sends this response what the response will be used for. If it's for the web, you get the search page. Non-web applications will instead behave incorrectly or, at least, produce an incorrect error message.
Nonsense. Mathematics isn't a science!
In the US, companies are not people, but have many of the same rights as people. In other countries, for that matter, companies have sufficient rights to be harmed for the purposes of the law.
In law, financial damage is most certainly direct harm.
If you want to talk about "should be", you should make that clear. Rather than it actually being a victimless crime, you think it should be one. Completely different.
How is the only protocol affected HTTP? When a DNS query is made, it doesn't state what it's for -- regardless of the protocol to come, the DNS query is the same. Yet when an NX should be returned, a valid but incorrect response is returned. This is quite a significant difference.
It's not a victimless crime if the point of modding is enabling people to play pirated games. The game companies then are still victims. How damaging it is to the victims is not agreed on.
As far as health and safety, that's certainly hyperbole. Technically, though, a modified console could potentially expose the user to the system's laser and could potentially present an increased fire hazard (due to faulty wiring, soldering, etc. -- not the laser).