Several interesting things in this article but I'll just mention the part about shale. A few years back the story was peak oil and we were going to have a major energy crisis. With the prospect of more expensive energy shale became more interesting but at the same time everyone else was also looking at other sources of energy, renewable and other, and other things happened, like Iran's oil becoming more available. And now we have low oil prices over an extended period of time. Shale is not the cause of the nuclear energy glut, it's one of the victims. Shale can only be viable if energy cost is high enough.
As for the future of nuclear power, it's been going downhill since the eighties. Western nuclear energy got a severe blow with Chernobyl and after Fukushima western nuclear energy is dead. In the far east, mainly China it's got a future.
One use case involved taking a picture of a monument and Bixby being able to tell you information about this as well as recommendations of restaurants nearby.
In the original series Bixby would even tell you where you wanted to go and what food you were thinking of. And he lived in a plane that he named 'The Spirit' and the pilot was named Jerry.
The article isn't even about brainstorming but more about when a creative process works better alone or in group. The creative group session can take many forms. Their main theme is that depending on the individual the optimal strategy can be different. Some people work better alone. Just as well often people prefer a combination, alternating group and individual stages. All pretty sensible and bland I would think.
I don't think you should measure demonetization with your personal experience of ubiquitous R2000 notes. There are the statements of those involved who are clear: Cash is a competitor, and it has to be defeated. They are less clear about the exact approach. That is the deduction part. The deduction is that a brutal interruption of cash will cause people to move to credit cards quickly but that instant elimination is too brutal to be accepted. India is almost entirely cash based. That makes it different from the US. The effort to eliminate cash is worldwide but it is less painful once you have an electronic system everywhere.
In fact it's exactly what you should call eliminating. The intent is not to reintroduce cash. It's to engineer a slow death after the hard shock. The R2000 notes will never come near replacing the old notes.
It's my fault. I tried to get a laptop ban through security but it got spotted because it failed the laughtest, so they confiscated it and incarcerated it into their procedures.
This is 99% about control. There are multiple players here. Local governments, the US major political players, credit card companies, banks, they all get to win. Control means you know much more about transactions, you get more say about what transactions you favor or not, you get a larger percentage on transactions, you get to use negative interests in the bank because people can no longer extract their money from the bank. There's a lot. It's about power and the threat of power. For one thing it means the US can threaten to stop all financial traffic for any target they pick, on the spot. There is a big difference between using little cash and taking away the possibility to use cash.
This article http://norberthaering.de/en/ho... describes what happened in India. India is mostly cash based, or was until some people decided that was no longer the case. The result was a caricature of unchecked power.
You're criticizing my quote for not saying something else as well? In any case you're underestimating the reach of that quote. When the police militarizes, in attitude and in gear, it does not only cause a change in relationship, it is also a symptom. It's a very bad sign. If the (US ) police behave just like the military , it's because the situation has deteriorated too far . I'm not talking about bad cops that are protected by those in command. You can see that in the rules of engagement.A US cop can and does get sanctioned for following european style rules of engagement. When there's a possible threat, the cop has to shoot because the life of the cop is important, the other person's life is not. This is military logic.
My quote emphasizes the need for distinguishing between police and army. Your quote doesn't. My quote is directly relevant for the subject of militarization of the police. There's this dilemma where either someone appears smart by saying something that sounds clever, or make a simple and clear statement but not be taken seriously. I tried to make this as mundane and clear as possible. And I like the quote.
Youtube is just adapting to make what they publish generally more suitable for ads. The relevant model here seems to be Edward Herman's 'Propaganda Model' , which is generally considered to be about news and claims that news media are mainly following business logic: they adapt to get along with their advertizers, with government sources, with powerful players that could harm them. The result is that media are very compliant with the dominant powers and that journalists are selected for how well they fit into that system.
With youtube it's kinda obvious because they don't have any high principles to uphold but news media deny it claiming they're above all that.
Someone on here once pointed out a relevant quote from Commander William Adama:
. There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.
I think this is the place where diplomats warn that 'there is a risk of us moving in that direction' when they mean to describe the current situation.
uh right, it's closer to 5.800 K. Must have confused with Celsius. But the idea is the same. I have no idea how hot mercury lights get. How much is 'insanely' in Kelvin? Mercury lights do not obey the normal temperature curves (ugly color) so I'm not sure how one should calculate with those. Also I wouldn't conclude anything from how hot a light gets. The surface temperature of a bulb is a lot lower than that of the filament bu it's a design choice of the bulb. The filament in a plain low wattage lightbulb is also around 3000K and you can almost touch the bulb. With a halogen lamp you can't but that is because they chose to make the bulb very small.
The reason filament temperature is a limit is that even if you are completely, utterly surrounded with filaments, you cannot get hotter than those filaments. But then you're just inside a 3000k box.
Of course Germans have to consume copious amounts of beer. It's far too light. There's this little country to the northwest of Germany which has real beer. AND a sense of humour. But no Mezger unfortunately. No I don't mean your name, it's without a T.
The xkcd cartoon is a good source but it may require multiple readings. It also shows a figure that is almost completely surrounded by sun and explains that it cannot get any hotter than the sun that way. The person can can hold a large magnifying glass it will make no difference at all.
I would add then that the second law forbids this because... In your closed system you could have a little pipe going back from the hot place to the colder place and attach an engine to it that converts the heat to electricity that leaves your closed system through a pair of wires Because we know how to do that very well, creating electricity when heat is transferred from a hot to a cold place. That is what all steam turbines and fuel based engines do. That would mean you could make free electricity.
What makes you think this spying was taking place in our backyard? The fact that the CIA was installing spyware doesn't mean that the CIA was installing spyware on the property of US citizens. (it doesn't mean they weren't, either -- but as a matter of law, they are not legally allowed to spy inside the US)
Ahem,I don't know about what they're installing on US home computers but where communication is concerned I know at least three ways around the legal limitations without the need to ask for a warrant and without doing anything illegal: they can target someone abroad with the express purpose to monitor a US resident who is in contact with that person abroad. They can ask the UK to monitor the US resident, and they can do some rerouting through foreign servers in order to label communication as foreign. And apart from that they are of course also doing things that are illegal but maybe in the future will no longer be so.
Good one. I didn't know where to start , apart from oneliners that would show that I at least knew the reason but that would be no help for anyone who didn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Several interesting things in this article but I'll just mention the part about shale.
A few years back the story was peak oil and we were going to have a major energy crisis. With the prospect of more expensive energy shale became more interesting but at the same time everyone else was also looking at other sources of energy, renewable and other, and other things happened, like Iran's oil becoming more available. And now we have low oil prices over an extended period of time. Shale is not the cause of the nuclear energy glut, it's one of the victims. Shale can only be viable if energy cost is high enough.
As for the future of nuclear power, it's been going downhill since the eighties. Western nuclear energy got a severe blow with Chernobyl and after Fukushima western nuclear energy is dead. In the far east, mainly China it's got a future.
In the original series Bixby would even tell you where you wanted to go and what food you were thinking of. And he lived in a plane that he named 'The Spirit' and the pilot was named Jerry.
They are today, with hurricane Debbie on the prowl in the neighborhood!
The article isn't even about brainstorming but more about when a creative process works better alone or in group. The creative group session can take many forms.
Their main theme is that depending on the individual the optimal strategy can be different. Some people work better alone.
Just as well often people prefer a combination, alternating group and individual stages.
All pretty sensible and bland I would think.
I don't think you should measure demonetization with your personal experience of ubiquitous R2000 notes. There are the statements of those involved who are clear: Cash is a competitor, and it has to be defeated. They are less clear about the exact approach. That is the deduction part. The deduction is that a brutal interruption of cash will cause people to move to credit cards quickly but that instant elimination is too brutal to be accepted.
India is almost entirely cash based. That makes it different from the US. The effort to eliminate cash is worldwide but it is less painful once you have an electronic system everywhere.
In fact it's exactly what you should call eliminating. The intent is not to reintroduce cash. It's to engineer a slow death after the hard shock. The R2000 notes will never come near replacing the old notes.
It's my fault. I tried to get a laptop ban through security but it got spotted because it failed the laughtest, so they confiscated it and incarcerated it into their procedures.
This is 99% about control. There are multiple players here. Local governments, the US major political players, credit card companies, banks, they all get to win. Control means you know much more about transactions, you get more say about what transactions you favor or not, you get a larger percentage on transactions, you get to use negative interests in the bank because people can no longer extract their money from the bank. There's a lot. It's about power and the threat of power. For one thing it means the US can threaten to stop all financial traffic for any target they pick, on the spot. There is a big difference between using little cash and taking away the possibility to use cash.
This article http://norberthaering.de/en/ho... describes what happened in India. India is mostly cash based, or was until some people decided that was no longer the case. The result was a caricature of unchecked power.
You're criticizing my quote for not saying something else as well?
In any case you're underestimating the reach of that quote. When the police militarizes, in attitude and in gear, it does not only cause a change in relationship, it is also a symptom. It's a very bad sign.
If the (US ) police behave just like the military , it's because the situation has deteriorated too far . I'm not talking about bad cops that are protected by those in command. You can see that in the rules of engagement.A US cop can and does get sanctioned for following european style rules of engagement. When there's a possible threat, the cop has to shoot because the life of the cop is important, the other person's life is not. This is military logic.
My quote emphasizes the need for distinguishing between police and army. Your quote doesn't. My quote is directly relevant for the subject of militarization of the police.
There's this dilemma where either someone appears smart by saying something that sounds clever, or make a simple and clear statement but not be taken seriously. I tried to make this as mundane and clear as possible. And I like the quote.
Youtube is just adapting to make what they publish generally more suitable for ads. The relevant model here seems to be Edward Herman's 'Propaganda Model' ,
which is generally considered to be about news and claims that news media are mainly following business logic: they adapt to get along with their advertizers, with government sources, with powerful players that could harm them. The result is that media are very compliant with the dominant powers and that journalists are selected for how well they fit into that system.
With youtube it's kinda obvious because they don't have any high principles to uphold but news media deny it claiming they're above all that.
Woops, that belongs in the terrifying anti riot vehicle thread.
Someone on here once pointed out a relevant quote from Commander William Adama:
I think this is the place where diplomats warn that 'there is a risk of us moving in that direction' when they mean to describe the current situation.
Actually you have to say 'Obligatory' instead of "Mandatory". Obligatory is mandatory here.
uh right, it's closer to 5.800 K. Must have confused with Celsius. But the idea is the same. I have no idea how hot mercury lights get. How much is 'insanely' in Kelvin? Mercury lights do not obey the normal temperature curves (ugly color) so I'm not sure how one should calculate with those.
Also I wouldn't conclude anything from how hot a light gets. The surface temperature of a bulb is a lot lower than that of the filament bu it's a design choice of the bulb. The filament in a plain low wattage lightbulb is also around 3000K and you can almost touch the bulb. With a halogen lamp you can't but that is because they chose to make the bulb very small.
The reason filament temperature is a limit is that even if you are completely, utterly surrounded with filaments, you cannot get hotter than those filaments. But then you're just inside a 3000k box.
I don't think mentioning the second law ever helps laymen understand the physics of the situation.
Of course Germans have to consume copious amounts of beer. It's far too light. There's this little country to the northwest of Germany which has real beer. AND a sense of humour. But no Mezger unfortunately. No I don't mean your name, it's without a T.
Hm, that doesn't look right. That would be like 0.5 mg or 10 times too much. Unless it's me who is mistaken now...
The xkcd cartoon is a good source but it may require multiple readings. It also shows a figure that is almost completely surrounded by sun and explains that it cannot get any hotter than the sun that way. The person can can hold a large magnifying glass it will make no difference at all.
Because they're all thinking, calculating in their heads.
I would add then that the second law forbids this because...
In your closed system you could have a little pipe going back from the hot place to the colder place and attach an engine to it that converts the heat to electricity that leaves your closed system through a pair of wires Because we know how to do that very well, creating electricity when heat is transferred from a hot to a cold place. That is what all steam turbines and fuel based engines do. That would mean you could make free electricity.
Ahem,I don't know about what they're installing on US home computers but where communication is concerned I know at least three ways around the legal limitations without the need to ask for a warrant and without doing anything illegal: they can target someone abroad with the express purpose to monitor a US resident who is in contact with that person abroad. They can ask the UK to monitor the US resident, and they can do some rerouting through foreign servers in order to label communication as foreign.
And apart from that they are of course also doing things that are illegal but maybe in the future will no longer be so.
Good one. I didn't know where to start , apart from oneliners that would show that I at least knew the reason but that would be no help for anyone who didn't.
... Edison said, as he presented the first commercial lightbulb. It glowed slightly red in the dark.
No that's too high. 2000K is enough