Fuel consumption is only very, very roughly inversely proportional to weight. Aerodynamic and engine properties are highly variable and a major factor.
Gas consumption is related to mileage driven with a proportionality constant that's different from one car to the next: gas efficiency. High-efficiency cars do as much damage to roads as low-efficiency cars, yet can have as much as one sixth the gas consumption.
GPS can also be fairly easily jammed. In a number of areas (particularly with cheaper devices), it's very difficult to get reliable GPS signals, so blocking reception wouldn't be all that suspicious.
I intentionally avoid being the one to draw a particular distinction, but there is certainly a distinction.
Actually, I guess I do make a rough distinction -- data-only goods can be fully represented in reality. For example, computer code can be printed out. (Further, those fall under the definition of intellectual property -- an existing definition for intangible goods.)
They're not banning hiring someone to perform a service in a virtual world for you; they're only banning the sale of virtual goods. If you think you can trick them with that distinction, though, try convincing someone that when they buy a desk lamp, they're not buying a good, but rather are purchasing the services of the manufacturer of that lamp.
All of the non-gold-selling Internet business that comes to mind involves either selling a real good (although that real good consists of data) or performing a service, not selling a virtual good.
You seem to be confusing real goods on the Internet that consist of data with virtual goods. (Note that a real good consisting of data -- like the contents of a website -- can easily, though perhaps inconveniently, rendered into data in a more "physical" form. I cannot give you WoW gold via any physical means.)
Really? I certainly can. I don't know what he did with the EPA. What's his publication history? To be fair, I don't even know exactly what his report covers. If I had to guess, he's probably qualified to comment on risk assessment and economic impact, but not on scientific fact. (But then, he may say "it's not a scientific consensus" and then refer to papers that back him.)
The fact that he was in a position to write a report for the EPA on the matter does indicate he has some level of qualification, though.
Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the back story here of what his job is at the EPA, how this report came about and was cancelled, et cetera. He could be pulling a political stunt, or the EPA could be suppressing a reasonable report for political reasons. I strongly disagree with either.
He has an undergraduate degree in physics. That is by no means a qualification to be an authority on climate science, although at least he may understand some basic scientific principles. His work since his Ph. D. in economics is what's relevant.
It's not taboo, it's a heuristic for identifying people whose purpose in speaking is to engage in rather poorly-thought-out criticism of him. It's a pretty effective heuristic, too. I'm not an Obama supporter, but the correlation between including the "Hussein" and having nothing of value to say is very high.
It's a little disingenuous to say that his background is in physics and economics. His undergrad is in physics, that doesn't mean anything. He's had a career; what does it consist of? (No, I don't know the answer.) At least as an economist, he may well be on firm footing on the potential economic impact of hasty decisions.
Gigaflop, on the other hand, doesn't. One gigaflop is a billion floating-point operations. One gigaflops is a billion floating-point operations per second. Contrary to "obvious" rules of grammar, the "s" isn't pluaralization, it's the unit "seconds".
Slashdot Mirror
Fuel consumption is only very, very roughly inversely proportional to weight. Aerodynamic and engine properties are highly variable and a major factor.
Also, in Indiana, they don't verbs.
Gas consumption is related to mileage driven with a proportionality constant that's different from one car to the next: gas efficiency. High-efficiency cars do as much damage to roads as low-efficiency cars, yet can have as much as one sixth the gas consumption.
GPS can also be fairly easily jammed. In a number of areas (particularly with cheaper devices), it's very difficult to get reliable GPS signals, so blocking reception wouldn't be all that suspicious.
I intentionally avoid being the one to draw a particular distinction, but there is certainly a distinction.
Actually, I guess I do make a rough distinction -- data-only goods can be fully represented in reality. For example, computer code can be printed out. (Further, those fall under the definition of intellectual property -- an existing definition for intangible goods.)
Bacteria? They're not even eukaryotes!
You're aware that the post you replied to contains a definition of breaking news, yes?
Apparently pointing out poor word choice in trolls counts as insightful.
They're not banning hiring someone to perform a service in a virtual world for you; they're only banning the sale of virtual goods. If you think you can trick them with that distinction, though, try convincing someone that when they buy a desk lamp, they're not buying a good, but rather are purchasing the services of the manufacturer of that lamp.
All of the non-gold-selling Internet business that comes to mind involves either selling a real good (although that real good consists of data) or performing a service, not selling a virtual good.
You seem to be confusing real goods on the Internet that consist of data with virtual goods. (Note that a real good consisting of data -- like the contents of a website -- can easily, though perhaps inconveniently, rendered into data in a more "physical" form. I cannot give you WoW gold via any physical means.)
You know, both Guantanamo and the Iraq War basically took place in other countries.
No, "gigaflop" is a different unit, in which the "p" comes from the second letter in "operations".
Really? I certainly can. I don't know what he did with the EPA. What's his publication history? To be fair, I don't even know exactly what his report covers. If I had to guess, he's probably qualified to comment on risk assessment and economic impact, but not on scientific fact. (But then, he may say "it's not a scientific consensus" and then refer to papers that back him.)
The fact that he was in a position to write a report for the EPA on the matter does indicate he has some level of qualification, though.
Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the back story here of what his job is at the EPA, how this report came about and was cancelled, et cetera. He could be pulling a political stunt, or the EPA could be suppressing a reasonable report for political reasons. I strongly disagree with either.
Combining "climate change" and "credentials" is a ticket for drama.
It doesn't get any better if you write out the full term "kibibits". Thankfully, I've never had to say "gibibits".
You think billions of watts is bad -- just look at how much pressure you're under in Pascals!
He has an undergraduate degree in physics. That is by no means a qualification to be an authority on climate science, although at least he may understand some basic scientific principles. His work since his Ph. D. in economics is what's relevant.
I'm not entirely sure you're familiar with your scientific terminology there.
Actually, let me change that -- I'm entirely sure you're not familiar with your scientific terminology there.
Did you seriously try to have a scientific opinion and refer to it as C02? It's an O, not a zero.
Economics has nothing to do with global warming. It has plenty to do with policy decisions, regardless of what the policy decision is about.
It's not taboo, it's a heuristic for identifying people whose purpose in speaking is to engage in rather poorly-thought-out criticism of him. It's a pretty effective heuristic, too. I'm not an Obama supporter, but the correlation between including the "Hussein" and having nothing of value to say is very high.
Out of curiosity, do you have a physics degree?
Sweet. I, too, have an undergrad physics degree (actually, I have a graduate physics degree, too) -- I'm going to start reporting on various things!
It's a little disingenuous to say that his background is in physics and economics. His undergrad is in physics, that doesn't mean anything. He's had a career; what does it consist of? (No, I don't know the answer.) At least as an economist, he may well be on firm footing on the potential economic impact of hasty decisions.
That's right -- gigaflops has a time dimension.
Gigaflop, on the other hand, doesn't. One gigaflop is a billion floating-point operations. One gigaflops is a billion floating-point operations per second. Contrary to "obvious" rules of grammar, the "s" isn't pluaralization, it's the unit "seconds".