Yeah, that I can definitely see. Though I suspect that number is improving... hopefully you won't have to wait too long. I think in my case it will wait until I've done some other house projects and such...
Why wouldn't you just keeping using the old panels? They won't get any less useful. They'll still put out very nearly the same power level 25 years from now. No one leases a car for that long because you don't expect your car to still be in good working order that far in the future, and you'll want the newer improved safety features, better engine, better gas mileage, etc. But with the panels... it's just watts. So your neighbor's newer installation has 8 panels instead of 10 for the same power level or something. Who cares? It doesn't take space you're actually using, you're still getting the number of watts you purchased.
What were you hoping for? If you buy out right, you can buy new stuff later. Besides, it's not like your cell phone where they go out of style; a 1kW system will still be a 1kW system. Improvements just mean the prices go down, not that your neighbors will laugh at your outdated panels.
They've hardly missed the boat. If Bitcoin really disrupts things in Argentina, then that means Argentinians holding Bitcoins instead of holding pesos or dollars. That would imply they hold a number of Bitcoins worth some vaguely similar amount to what their current cash holdings are worth. Given that there are about $50B USD worth of pesos, and only $3B USD worth of Bitcoins, then either the price goes up a bunch or Bitcoin isn't actually being all that disruptive.
Fortunately, bitcoin allows multi-signature escrow. That permits the escrow service to decide who gets the bitcoins (buyer or seller), but doesn't let them run off with them.
It's not perfect, as it can't prevent collusion between escrow agent and either party against the other party, but it does prevent the simpler forms of "just run off with the money".
Why it isn't in more widespread use yet, I have no idea.
They're fairly clear that they want the ability to provide both 2kVA and 2kW. Presumably that implies you only have to be able to deliver 2kW into a resistive load, and that if they present a load with power factor 0.7, you need to be able to provide it with 1400W and 2kVA.
By a quirk of history, this particular culture won and imposed it customs on everyone else.
There's a societal down-side to polygamy, one that needs STRONG cultural overrides to prevent. If (presumably) richer men are allowed multiple wives, that means that there are fewer wives for the rest of the men. You then end up with an excess of unmarried, non-parental young adult men, and being married and a parent is usually a calming influence. These single men are usually the first in the streets if things take even a tiny down-turn. We still see this in Arabic countries which allow polygamy, as well as countries where there's an imbalance of men and women, such as China and India (one-child policies as well as gender-based abortions responsible.
This is an obvious problem in societies that also have the problem of being strongly patriarchal and/or misogynistic. (The obvious examples you site have these issues.) In cases where women are equally allowed and able to engage in such relationships, there is no a priori reason to suspect such a problem.
The only evidence I know of that is directly relevant to modern times and from a sexually equal setting is highly anecdotal. I've looked a little for better without luck. But, what I've seen and heard from the polyamory community is that this is most likely a non-issue, and that if it isn't, you probably have your genders reversed. Basically, I've seen weak anecdotal evidence that in some circles, the women tend to participate in more relationships than the men do. I haven't seen any evidence (weak or otherwise) of the reverse effect. And, of course, this report should be taken with a large grain of salt, as it's based on fairly strongly selection-biased sources. However, I think it's strong enough to call your fears into question.
For reference, I (male, straight) in a happily polyamorous relationship. My partner (female) has a paramour (also male, also straight). The three of us get along well, and none of us are actively dating anyone else.
Coal ash is the solid stuff left after you burn the coal. The carbon (and heavy hydrocarbons) in coal is the stuff that burns. The stuff left behind has very, very low carbon content. The carbon basically all comes out as CO2 gas.
You can distill helium out of the air. There's some left. The cost would be around 10x the cost of neon, though. And if you have to ask what neon costs...
Actually, people do distill some helium out of the air. It comes out with the neon as "noncondensing gases" in the column. Those gases get sold to some buyers of neon, who don't mind some extra helium in the gas. Neon signs aren't too picky, iirc.
There are a number of interesting arguments that you're right, and that politics isn't about policy. If you came to that position on your own, you'll probably find the link interesting. (If not, you've probably already seen it...)
Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch
on
The Case Against DNA
·
· Score: 1
There have been cases of criminals finding ways to substitute another person's DNA for their own, including one case of a doctor who actually managed to hide another person's blood in one of his veins, thus faking his innocence.
Do you have a link for that? It sounds fascinating.
Actually, it just involves putting them in landfills where they don't decompose. Eating them means digesting them, which returns their carbon content to the atmosphere. This proposal replaces eating them with sequestering them.
There have been several more disasters, depending on where you set the line. If you accept anything in the "accident" range, that's 8 total events, one of which didn't involve a reactor, just some nuclear material. So, either 7 or 8, depending how you count. See International Nuclear Event Scale.
Suppose you believe that to be the case, and then you observe such a coin landing on edge? In other words, what do you do when certain knowledge encounters an absurd event (unity prior vs impossible evidence)? There is no recovery from that, any more than you can say that infinity minus infinity is 5. The numbers one and zero do not behave like probabilities. In order to conclude that an even has certainty 1, you must observe infinitely strong evidence about it. Even in a math journal, a carefully reviewed published paper does not come close to infinite evidence.
Or math, the queen of all sciences (ducks from flames)
Really? I don't think 100% certainty means what you think it does. Have you ever made a mistake proving a theorem? Has a peer-reviewed published theorem ever later been found to have a mistake? Is it even remotely possible that it will happen in the future? If so, you need to assign a level of certainty to any given theorem: a probability that it has a mistake. As it gets used more a scrutinized more, that probability declines dramatically, but it can't reach zero. Zero and one are not probabilities. There's a big difference between 0.99999999, or any other finite number of nines, and infinite nines. For the same reasons that infinity is not a real number, zero and one are not probabilities or certainties.
EVERY HOUSE should have the option for affordable or free internet, its that important.
Free internet service? How does that happen? Oh, you mean "paid for by someone else". Is it really that important?
It's really hard to get a job without an Internet connection. Sure, it can be done, but it's harder. It's almost as important as having a phone number and address. Would it be cheaper to subsidize Internet access than to pay unemployment benefits? Or to forgo the taxes that get collected from people who are employed?
That's what firewalls are for. The fact that NAT and firewall often go together in IPv4 does not mean it has to be that way. Just set your IPv6 firewall to deny by default, and you'll have the same security setup you usually get with NAT+firewall on IPv4, but with more flexibility.
Most people can set up IPv6 networking at home with a tunnel broker or similar. You can probably get it working on your laptop when traveling, provided the firewalls aren't too brain dead. So having your business support it will make it easier a lot of the time, but not all the time.
The decay to a non-zero constant one doesn't have tight conditions: f(n)=a*f(n-1)+c will decay to a constant for -1<a<1. In higher order equations the behavior is similar.
On a related note, I'm curious what part of this is a "mistake". I think a better headline would be something like "SFPD Breathalyzer Fraud Puts Hundreds of DUI Convictions In Doubt".
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that I can definitely see. Though I suspect that number is improving... hopefully you won't have to wait too long. I think in my case it will wait until I've done some other house projects and such...
Why wouldn't you just keeping using the old panels? They won't get any less useful. They'll still put out very nearly the same power level 25 years from now. No one leases a car for that long because you don't expect your car to still be in good working order that far in the future, and you'll want the newer improved safety features, better engine, better gas mileage, etc. But with the panels... it's just watts. So your neighbor's newer installation has 8 panels instead of 10 for the same power level or something. Who cares? It doesn't take space you're actually using, you're still getting the number of watts you purchased.
What were you hoping for? If you buy out right, you can buy new stuff later. Besides, it's not like your cell phone where they go out of style; a 1kW system will still be a 1kW system. Improvements just mean the prices go down, not that your neighbors will laugh at your outdated panels.
They've hardly missed the boat. If Bitcoin really disrupts things in Argentina, then that means Argentinians holding Bitcoins instead of holding pesos or dollars. That would imply they hold a number of Bitcoins worth some vaguely similar amount to what their current cash holdings are worth. Given that there are about $50B USD worth of pesos, and only $3B USD worth of Bitcoins, then either the price goes up a bunch or Bitcoin isn't actually being all that disruptive.
Fortunately, bitcoin allows multi-signature escrow. That permits the escrow service to decide who gets the bitcoins (buyer or seller), but doesn't let them run off with them. It's not perfect, as it can't prevent collusion between escrow agent and either party against the other party, but it does prevent the simpler forms of "just run off with the money". Why it isn't in more widespread use yet, I have no idea.
They're fairly clear that they want the ability to provide both 2kVA and 2kW. Presumably that implies you only have to be able to deliver 2kW into a resistive load, and that if they present a load with power factor 0.7, you need to be able to provide it with 1400W and 2kVA.
By a quirk of history, this particular culture won and imposed it customs on everyone else.
There's a societal down-side to polygamy, one that needs STRONG cultural overrides to prevent. If (presumably) richer men are allowed multiple wives, that means that there are fewer wives for the rest of the men. You then end up with an excess of unmarried, non-parental young adult men, and being married and a parent is usually a calming influence. These single men are usually the first in the streets if things take even a tiny down-turn. We still see this in Arabic countries which allow polygamy, as well as countries where there's an imbalance of men and women, such as China and India (one-child policies as well as gender-based abortions responsible.
This is an obvious problem in societies that also have the problem of being strongly patriarchal and/or misogynistic. (The obvious examples you site have these issues.) In cases where women are equally allowed and able to engage in such relationships, there is no a priori reason to suspect such a problem.
The only evidence I know of that is directly relevant to modern times and from a sexually equal setting is highly anecdotal. I've looked a little for better without luck. But, what I've seen and heard from the polyamory community is that this is most likely a non-issue, and that if it isn't, you probably have your genders reversed. Basically, I've seen weak anecdotal evidence that in some circles, the women tend to participate in more relationships than the men do. I haven't seen any evidence (weak or otherwise) of the reverse effect. And, of course, this report should be taken with a large grain of salt, as it's based on fairly strongly selection-biased sources. However, I think it's strong enough to call your fears into question.
For reference, I (male, straight) in a happily polyamorous relationship. My partner (female) has a paramour (also male, also straight). The three of us get along well, and none of us are actively dating anyone else.
Coal ash is the solid stuff left after you burn the coal. The carbon (and heavy hydrocarbons) in coal is the stuff that burns. The stuff left behind has very, very low carbon content. The carbon basically all comes out as CO2 gas.
Given the stuff in coal ash, I don't think I want it pumped into places in contact with groundwater that people drink.
You can distill helium out of the air. There's some left. The cost would be around 10x the cost of neon, though. And if you have to ask what neon costs...
Actually, people do distill some helium out of the air. It comes out with the neon as "noncondensing gases" in the column. Those gases get sold to some buyers of neon, who don't mind some extra helium in the gas. Neon signs aren't too picky, iirc.
There are a number of interesting arguments that you're right, and that politics isn't about policy. If you came to that position on your own, you'll probably find the link interesting. (If not, you've probably already seen it...)
There have been cases of criminals finding ways to substitute another person's DNA for their own, including one case of a doctor who actually managed to hide another person's blood in one of his veins, thus faking his innocence.
Do you have a link for that? It sounds fascinating.
Actually, it just involves putting them in landfills where they don't decompose. Eating them means digesting them, which returns their carbon content to the atmosphere. This proposal replaces eating them with sequestering them.
There have been several more disasters, depending on where you set the line. If you accept anything in the "accident" range, that's 8 total events, one of which didn't involve a reactor, just some nuclear material. So, either 7 or 8, depending how you count. See International Nuclear Event Scale.
Suppose you believe that to be the case, and then you observe such a coin landing on edge? In other words, what do you do when certain knowledge encounters an absurd event (unity prior vs impossible evidence)? There is no recovery from that, any more than you can say that infinity minus infinity is 5. The numbers one and zero do not behave like probabilities. In order to conclude that an even has certainty 1, you must observe infinitely strong evidence about it. Even in a math journal, a carefully reviewed published paper does not come close to infinite evidence.
For 100% certainty you need religion
Or math, the queen of all sciences (ducks from flames)
Really? I don't think 100% certainty means what you think it does. Have you ever made a mistake proving a theorem? Has a peer-reviewed published theorem ever later been found to have a mistake? Is it even remotely possible that it will happen in the future? If so, you need to assign a level of certainty to any given theorem: a probability that it has a mistake. As it gets used more a scrutinized more, that probability declines dramatically, but it can't reach zero. Zero and one are not probabilities. There's a big difference between 0.99999999, or any other finite number of nines, and infinite nines. For the same reasons that infinity is not a real number, zero and one are not probabilities or certainties.
EVERY HOUSE should have the option for affordable or free internet, its that important.
Free internet service? How does that happen? Oh, you mean "paid for by someone else". Is it really that important?
It's really hard to get a job without an Internet connection. Sure, it can be done, but it's harder. It's almost as important as having a phone number and address. Would it be cheaper to subsidize Internet access than to pay unemployment benefits? Or to forgo the taxes that get collected from people who are employed?
No, I'm talking about both. Having IPv6 on the internal network, with public IPv6 addresses (properly firewalled, of course), makes VPN easier.
That's what firewalls are for. The fact that NAT and firewall often go together in IPv4 does not mean it has to be that way. Just set your IPv6 firewall to deny by default, and you'll have the same security setup you usually get with NAT+firewall on IPv4, but with more flexibility.
Most people can set up IPv6 networking at home with a tunnel broker or similar. You can probably get it working on your laptop when traveling, provided the firewalls aren't too brain dead. So having your business support it will make it easier a lot of the time, but not all the time.
IPv6 makes VPN a lot easier and more reliable. Many small businesses care about that so that their employees can work while at home or traveling.
The decay to a non-zero constant one doesn't have tight conditions: f(n)=a*f(n-1)+c will decay to a constant for -1<a<1. In higher order equations the behavior is similar.
Second- or higher-degree difference equations can also oscillate stably, decay to a non-zero constant, or decay to a linear function.
Works fine in Chrome. As I tell my users on a regular basis, there's a significant difference between "it doesn't work" and "it didn't work one time".
You are part of the reason that software sucks so badly.
"The software has errors" is still "the software has errors", even if some errors make their presence felt less frequently.
On a related note, I'm curious what part of this is a "mistake". I think a better headline would be something like "SFPD Breathalyzer Fraud Puts Hundreds of DUI Convictions In Doubt".