People want to firms making these machines to curl up and die not because of intelligent users like yourself. They have the desire because of the masses of people who buy disposable, non-recyclable, non-reusable plastic cups of bad coffee, in the manner *that these companies want people to use them*.
The standard use case is a vastly wasteful enterprise, and designed to be that way.
Certainly, people can change their impressions, but impressions are not facts. Only the impressed can decide that his impression is incorrect.
If you have the impression that he was stating a fact, that's your impression. Your impression is not wrong.
My impression is that he was stating his impression.
In no way, did anyone claim that Ananonymous Coward was stating a fact that aliases are not a feature of PowerShell, but you seemed to have the impression that is what he, in fact, stated.
The ability and manner in which one does things are very different. Being able to do something does not mean it is easy, convenient or maintainable, for example.
A woman is held hostage and you comment on her being her own worst enemy and dis her choice of food, but ignore commenting on the morality of the man, who through violence and force held her hostage?
A market solution to healthcare does not work. For a market to function effectively, the consumer must be able to make rational choices. When it comes to healthcare though, patients do not have the expertise required to make rational choices. They turn to experts to advise them, but those experts, doctors, are compensated by the purveyors of medicines, tests and treatments for recommending those medicines, tests and treatments.
Basically, I was attempting to show that a claim that bus efficiency [much less than] (not sure how Slashdot wants me to typographically represent less-than less-than) car efficiency needs some data because a quick dig showed that it was far, far closer. You exemplified this closeness by showing that on fixed-length trips they are even closer than I claimed.
I agree that mpg is a poor metric for efficiency in passenger-miles. I used those, because that's what I found quickly and I did not want to put in the effort of conversion.
My post was not meant to be a rigorous study. I was merely asking the poster to who I was replying for their data, because my cursory look for their data did not show anything even resembling what they were claiming.
I don't require a link, but perhaps a name of an engineer or a name of a study or which RAS meeting? I am not finding any of what you mention online. Perhaps my search terms are lacking, so anything else to go on?
On average, buses are far worse than cars for energy efficiency because of the low average load factor.
On what data is this assertion based? I spent a few minutes seeing if such data exist. I could not find data to support your claim that buses are far worse.
I found the following. A bus fuel efficiency is about 5 mpg [1]. That is with fifty-five passengers, which is the maximum capacity and therefore our lower bound. In my county, the average load-factor over all of 2012 was 479 million passenger miles divided by 44 million vehicle miles, or 10 passengers per mile.
Our average fuel consumption over number of passengers then is 50 mpg, which is not far worse than cars for energy efficiency. In 2006, the average mpg of a private vehicle on the road was about 20 mpg. Even with two people in such a vehicle, the average-loaded bus is better.
I did not dig very deeply; I was more trying to find your data and stumbled into data that seems to paint a different picture. It's quite possible that my data paints the wrong picture and you were using much more sound data, but because you did not provide it, I must ask for a citation now.
I was curious about how you came to believe and apply your generalization, because societal generations are interesting to me, and likely others in society. I don't care about your opinion of my personal education because that does not seem relevant to your opinion, your generalization, or your and my interaction.
Interestingly, you never did answer my actual question about candidates who went to schools that accept legacies but are not themselves legacies, which was the whole reason I posted in the first place. Instead, for an unknown reason, you gave me advice on how I might, if I wanted, get you to respect my education.
I phrased my question incorrectly; I'm sorry. How do you know which schools belong on your list of those that take legacies and those that do not? I could find no reliable published sources.
As to your second point: I don't care if you respect my education or not. I got my education to educate myself, not for your respect.
How did you decide which schools take legacies?Do you find that the quality of the candidates who went to those schools, but were not themselves legacies, to be poorly-suited candidates for your position?
and the law will not actually stop anyone from anything.
Laws aren't meant to stop things from happening.
When the people writing the law state that one of the purposes they are introducing the law is, wait for it, "deterrence", they, by definition, are meant to stop things from happening. You cannot really claim that what a people did was not meant to do exactly what the people doing it stated they wanted to accomplish.
More common than Chalnoth means nothing. Three people on YouTube mean nothing. What percentage of Real Chance sellers are gaming the organization in such a way that the organization is unawares? *That* is the important question here.
Well, that depends... has he also cut any bonuses he may get? How much does he already have stashed away? Is the company public, or going public? If so, how much stock does he own? Is he contemplating an entry into politics and is doing it to put a nice coat of polish on his populism creds?
By the way: For the longest time, Steve Jobs had an annual salary of $1.00 as CEO of Apple. Of course, his stock holdings in the company gave him more money annually than the GDP of many small countries, but...
Anyrate, while this is admirable and such, the sceptic in me wants to know more abut how he can afford to do that (because $70k/yr in Seattle ain't really all that much money), and why.
$70,000 not being all that much money depends on how much you expect is "all that much". I was supporting a family in Seattle with a single income of $70,000 before taxes, with want of nothing.
But, that's not what prompted me to reply.He reduced his salary to 7% of its prior amount because he felt he had enough and wanted his company to better invest that money in its other employees. He could have six billion in cash sitting in accounts all over the world, and it wouldn't change the sense of his action.
What makes a network real? Does it require a central authority dictating programming to each affiliate? Does it require terrestrial broadcast capability? Does it require orbital broadcast capability? All three?
As it stands, I will end up paying them $30 to watch their product commercial free when it is released. Do you think that Game of Thrones is worth more money? How much do you think they should charge? How many commercials would a "real" network have to inject into their broadcasts to recoup what they'd have paid HBO for the license to it?
It's perfectly possible to own a home and have a savings rate high enough to have quite a cushion to ride out any potentially destabilizing events. The troubles occur when one buys a home that is beyond their means to afford.
I stand corrected about the 70%, I didn't realize there were caps. I'll revise my statement then.
If one has a mortgage without enough of an emergency fund to pay that mortgage in the event of a job loss for enough time to downsize to a smaller home, then one is living beyond their means.
In other words, if something like the loss of one job will cause a financial crisis, one is doing it wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
People want to firms making these machines to curl up and die not because of intelligent users like yourself. They have the desire because of the masses of people who buy disposable, non-recyclable, non-reusable plastic cups of bad coffee, in the manner *that these companies want people to use them*.
The standard use case is a vastly wasteful enterprise, and designed to be that way.
Certainly, people can change their impressions, but impressions are not facts. Only the impressed can decide that his impression is incorrect.
If you have the impression that he was stating a fact, that's your impression. Your impression is not wrong.
My impression is that he was stating his impression.
In no way, did anyone claim that Ananonymous Coward was stating a fact that aliases are not a feature of PowerShell, but you seemed to have the impression that is what he, in fact, stated.
Those were impressions, not examples. Impressions cannot be wrong. Perhaps you missed the first, and most important, line of Anonymous Coward's post?
The ability and manner in which one does things are very different. Being able to do something does not mean it is easy, convenient or maintainable, for example.
A woman is held hostage and you comment on her being her own worst enemy and dis her choice of food, but ignore commenting on the morality of the man, who through violence and force held her hostage?
A market solution to healthcare does not work. For a market to function effectively, the consumer must be able to make rational choices. When it comes to healthcare though, patients do not have the expertise required to make rational choices. They turn to experts to advise them, but those experts, doctors, are compensated by the purveyors of medicines, tests and treatments for recommending those medicines, tests and treatments.
Basically, I was attempting to show that a claim that bus efficiency [much less than] (not sure how Slashdot wants me to typographically represent less-than less-than) car efficiency needs some data because a quick dig showed that it was far, far closer. You exemplified this closeness by showing that on fixed-length trips they are even closer than I claimed.
I agree that mpg is a poor metric for efficiency in passenger-miles. I used those, because that's what I found quickly and I did not want to put in the effort of conversion.
My post was not meant to be a rigorous study. I was merely asking the poster to who I was replying for their data, because my cursory look for their data did not show anything even resembling what they were claiming.
I don't require a link, but perhaps a name of an engineer or a name of a study or which RAS meeting? I am not finding any of what you mention online. Perhaps my search terms are lacking, so anything else to go on?
On average, buses are far worse than cars for energy efficiency because of the low average load factor.
On what data is this assertion based? I spent a few minutes seeing if such data exist. I could not find data to support your claim that buses are far worse.
I found the following. A bus fuel efficiency is about 5 mpg [1]. That is with fifty-five passengers, which is the maximum capacity and therefore our lower bound. In my county, the average load-factor over all of 2012 was 479 million passenger miles divided by 44 million vehicle miles, or 10 passengers per mile.
Our average fuel consumption over number of passengers then is 50 mpg, which is not far worse than cars for energy efficiency. In 2006, the average mpg of a private vehicle on the road was about 20 mpg. Even with two people in such a vehicle, the average-loaded bus is better.
I did not dig very deeply; I was more trying to find your data and stumbled into data that seems to paint a different picture. It's quite possible that my data paints the wrong picture and you were using much more sound data, but because you did not provide it, I must ask for a citation now.
Which data had you used?
[1] http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00o...
[2] http://metro.kingcounty.gov/am...
[3] http://www.project.org/info.ph...
I was curious about how you came to believe and apply your generalization, because societal generations are interesting to me, and likely others in society. I don't care about your opinion of my personal education because that does not seem relevant to your opinion, your generalization, or your and my interaction.
Interestingly, you never did answer my actual question about candidates who went to schools that accept legacies but are not themselves legacies, which was the whole reason I posted in the first place. Instead, for an unknown reason, you gave me advice on how I might, if I wanted, get you to respect my education.
I phrased my question incorrectly; I'm sorry. How do you know which schools belong on your list of those that take legacies and those that do not? I could find no reliable published sources.
As to your second point: I don't care if you respect my education or not. I got my education to educate myself, not for your respect.
How did you decide which schools take legacies?Do you find that the quality of the candidates who went to those schools, but were not themselves legacies, to be poorly-suited candidates for your position?
If it is showing the same results, that means Google knows who you are, even when using Startpage.
Especially since it appears sometimes bounty programs cost almost nothing to implement.
and the law will not actually stop anyone from anything.
Laws aren't meant to stop things from happening.
When the people writing the law state that one of the purposes they are introducing the law is, wait for it, "deterrence", they, by definition, are meant to stop things from happening. You cannot really claim that what a people did was not meant to do exactly what the people doing it stated they wanted to accomplish.
More common than Chalnoth means nothing. Three people on YouTube mean nothing. What percentage of Real Chance sellers are gaming the organization in such a way that the organization is unawares? *That* is the important question here.
Why would you make an excuse, when you can be honest and say "no, thank you?"
It's a shame, what happened to you, but that's no reason to start treating *other* people like they are abusers.
Well, that depends... has he also cut any bonuses he may get? How much does he already have stashed away? Is the company public, or going public? If so, how much stock does he own? Is he contemplating an entry into politics and is doing it to put a nice coat of polish on his populism creds?
By the way: For the longest time, Steve Jobs had an annual salary of $1.00 as CEO of Apple. Of course, his stock holdings in the company gave him more money annually than the GDP of many small countries, but...
Anyrate, while this is admirable and such, the sceptic in me wants to know more abut how he can afford to do that (because $70k/yr in Seattle ain't really all that much money), and why.
$70,000 not being all that much money depends on how much you expect is "all that much". I was supporting a family in Seattle with a single income of $70,000 before taxes, with want of nothing.
But, that's not what prompted me to reply.He reduced his salary to 7% of its prior amount because he felt he had enough and wanted his company to better invest that money in its other employees. He could have six billion in cash sitting in accounts all over the world, and it wouldn't change the sense of his action.
The story in the book and the story in the show, while very similar, is not actually the same.
What makes a network real? Does it require a central authority dictating programming to each affiliate? Does it require terrestrial broadcast capability? Does it require orbital broadcast capability? All three?
As it stands, I will end up paying them $30 to watch their product commercial free when it is released. Do you think that Game of Thrones is worth more money? How much do you think they should charge? How many commercials would a "real" network have to inject into their broadcasts to recoup what they'd have paid HBO for the license to it?
It's perfectly possible to own a home and have a savings rate high enough to have quite a cushion to ride out any potentially destabilizing events. The troubles occur when one buys a home that is beyond their means to afford.
I stand corrected about the 70%, I didn't realize there were caps. I'll revise my statement then.
If one has a mortgage without enough of an emergency fund to pay that mortgage in the event of a job loss for enough time to downsize to a smaller home, then one is living beyond their means.
In other words, if something like the loss of one job will cause a financial crisis, one is doing it wrong.
Well, then that would alter one's *choice* to use unemployment as a *vacation*, which was what started this silly thread.