The major oil producers don't really operate in a capitalist fashion. Maybe Canada does, I'm not sure. This doesn't mean that they limit production on existing wells, but they don't necessarily invest to maximize current production.
If you take a look at the size of natural gas reserves, you will see that there is an abundant, available, reasonable cushion. The U.S. even happens to be sitting on a bunch of it (but by no means most of it).
So it seems tough to blame them for everything. Irrational behavior certainly seems to be a significant contributor (having just read Irrational Exuberance by Shiller (I read the first edition, apparently the second edition, written in 2004, predicts the real estate crisis), I would tend to blame everybody who bought a house in the last decade for the bubble, not just the people who you say should not have been given credit).
And you can go ahead and pretend that the 1999 gutting of Glass-Steagall had no effect, and that the gutless SEC operated by Bush had no effect, but reality that does not make.
There isn't anything particularly crazy or stupid about using the cheapest available resource. Peak oil mongering is often based around the implied assumption that the decline will come in the form of a shock, requiring us to immediately replace all of the cheap oil in one fell swoop. Reality suggests that the price of oil will go up as it becomes more difficult to extract, leading to the gradual replacement of oil consumption over time (and each time someone comes up with a price viable replacement, it reduces the demand for the remaining oil, further smoothing out the transition).
Insinuating Obama is more responsible than Bush for the state of today's economy is a particularly impressive piece of mental Judo.
Of course, we can't leave out all the folks who made impressive regulatory errors over the last 10 years, and all the businesses who operated dishonestly, folks from every nook and cranny of American politics.
There are plenty of people who are scraping by who will be forced to reduce their consumption in order to keep on scraping by.
It is entertaining the cultural mores you choose to highlight; a soccer mom driving an up-armored minivan 15,000 miles a year is consuming much less energy than a jet setting business traveler, and televisions use multiples of 10 less energy than home heating and cooling.
No, we need better propulsion technology. We aren't going to practice our way to better chemical rockets (well, we are, but the improvement isn't going to be enough to matter in the context of building a worthwhile colony).
So the analogy wasn't perfect. Like all analogies ever.
It isn't particularly tragic. I guess his kids might be a little sad, but who knows.
Things like mothers dying during childbirth and parents outliving their children are tragic, but usually only for the people involved. A famous entertainer dying at a somewhat young age (but who knows how many drugs he abused, I have already heard speculation he was injecting himself with Demerol before he died) shouldn't be tragic for the rest of the world.
You think Bill Gates doesn't buy whatever the hell he wants?
There is a big difference between a pop star who maybe made $1 billion (Google results suggest closer to $500 million) and a CEO who is worth $40 billion. I mean Gates could still buy 10 times the crap Jackson did after donating half his worth to charity, and then buy it all again.
I'm not trying to criticize Gates, I think his choices about what to do with his wealth are pretty reasonable, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of the comparison.
A better interpretation of that mandate is that they should immediately cease all operational activities and devote 100% of their resources to propulsion technology research.
Make this more than an assertion. There are already people tracking and projecting hundreds of the most dangerous objects in the solar system, and gravity tugs working over decades are quite likely to be economical and effective.
As far as comets, the statistics aren't anywhere near the certain you are complaining about if you figure that a 100,000 year time window is probably reasonable for establishing an actual self sustaining off planet colony. Given that window, we should figure out how to make a government that doesn't spend itself into ruin before we worry about space colonies.
I use a 40-something character phrase with my password safe. Since there aren't any drastic consequences for failure, I just use beep and mash (that is, I retype it when I get it wrong) until I get it right.
After a while, it stopped mattering as I started getting it right nearly every time (though I just checked and I had a re-occurrence of a problem where I insert a certain character (I know this because I can sort of watch myself mash the keys by now)).
In this particular case, the girl wasn't even carrying anything.
Anyway, nothing I said really precludes the school having a way to appropriately dispense drugs to the student. I'm not sure if that means just letting the kids carry bottles of pills or if it means having them go get them from the nurse. It certainly isn't ridiculous for the administrator to want to discuss whether the student should be taking pills with the parents (especially given the hysteria about kids and prescription drugs; I'd take it less seriously, but my mother actually had a break in at her house which was most likely kids looking for drugs...).
My concern isn't really that the kids would be carrying around ibuprofen, it is more to acknowledge that letting them casually carry around ibuprofen makes it harder to notice that they are carrying other drugs (and removing students who are abusing prescription drugs is well within what I think the school should be doing).
It's sort of an interesting circle. The administrators seem to think that they will share blame if a 13 year old sneaks drugs to another 13 year old while in school. This strikes me as a bit ridiculous and it seems like such an attitude would contribute to them going way to far in the name of zero tolerance. If the administrators didn't feel they were expected to live up to an impossible standard (13 year olds aren't dumb), they might not be so quick to do idiotic things.
I certainly think the administrator should be able to confiscate any pills students are observed with; I'm not afraid of ibuprofen, and if the student refuses, the resolution should be to contact the parents or police, not to strip search them, but they do actually need to have some ability to actually run their building, which means expecting certain behavior from students and the ability to get rid of students who comply (that sounds all fascist, but that isn't the way I mean it, I just mean that disruptive students shouldn't get to piss all over the other kids; odd story, that actually happened at my junior high. I'm glad I wasn't involved.).
The entire series of TI graphing calculators has unit conversions built in (the input is [number][unit][unit] and it outputs a number, it doesn't track the units). I imagine most higher end graphing calculators do, but I'm not sure (I was required to have such a calculator for several of the math classes I took in school...).
As far as the arithmetic, people don't practice it, so they are bad (or just slow) at it, and calculators are easy, so most people use them.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming you are honestly asking: It's a euphemism for an on-road SUV.
Many people drive them because it makes them feel safer, not because they will ever utilize the mechanical features of the vehicle.
Homo sapiens are estimated to have first originated about 200,000 years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
The major oil producers don't really operate in a capitalist fashion. Maybe Canada does, I'm not sure. This doesn't mean that they limit production on existing wells, but they don't necessarily invest to maximize current production.
If you take a look at the size of natural gas reserves, you will see that there is an abundant, available, reasonable cushion. The U.S. even happens to be sitting on a bunch of it (but by no means most of it).
Yeah, well, hopefully you don't expect people to understand what you are riffing on (because it is pretty obscure).
Anyway, low quality mortgages were only 10 or 15 percent of the overall mortgage market:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#Mortgage_market
So it seems tough to blame them for everything. Irrational behavior certainly seems to be a significant contributor (having just read Irrational Exuberance by Shiller (I read the first edition, apparently the second edition, written in 2004, predicts the real estate crisis), I would tend to blame everybody who bought a house in the last decade for the bubble, not just the people who you say should not have been given credit).
And you can go ahead and pretend that the 1999 gutting of Glass-Steagall had no effect, and that the gutless SEC operated by Bush had no effect, but reality that does not make.
There isn't anything particularly crazy or stupid about using the cheapest available resource. Peak oil mongering is often based around the implied assumption that the decline will come in the form of a shock, requiring us to immediately replace all of the cheap oil in one fell swoop. Reality suggests that the price of oil will go up as it becomes more difficult to extract, leading to the gradual replacement of oil consumption over time (and each time someone comes up with a price viable replacement, it reduces the demand for the remaining oil, further smoothing out the transition).
Insinuating Obama is more responsible than Bush for the state of today's economy is a particularly impressive piece of mental Judo.
Of course, we can't leave out all the folks who made impressive regulatory errors over the last 10 years, and all the businesses who operated dishonestly, folks from every nook and cranny of American politics.
There are plenty of people who are scraping by who will be forced to reduce their consumption in order to keep on scraping by.
It is entertaining the cultural mores you choose to highlight; a soccer mom driving an up-armored minivan 15,000 miles a year is consuming much less energy than a jet setting business traveler, and televisions use multiples of 10 less energy than home heating and cooling.
No, we need better propulsion technology. We aren't going to practice our way to better chemical rockets (well, we are, but the improvement isn't going to be enough to matter in the context of building a worthwhile colony).
So the analogy wasn't perfect. Like all analogies ever.
It isn't particularly tragic. I guess his kids might be a little sad, but who knows.
Things like mothers dying during childbirth and parents outliving their children are tragic, but usually only for the people involved. A famous entertainer dying at a somewhat young age (but who knows how many drugs he abused, I have already heard speculation he was injecting himself with Demerol before he died) shouldn't be tragic for the rest of the world.
You think Bill Gates doesn't buy whatever the hell he wants?
There is a big difference between a pop star who maybe made $1 billion (Google results suggest closer to $500 million) and a CEO who is worth $40 billion. I mean Gates could still buy 10 times the crap Jackson did after donating half his worth to charity, and then buy it all again.
I'm not trying to criticize Gates, I think his choices about what to do with his wealth are pretty reasonable, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of the comparison.
If you look closer, with a more optimistic eye, you will see dozens of cases of people developing technology merely to help others.
Are they going to harvest our satellites for material, or are we using a more fun definition of self sustaining than that?
We only have a few rockets, and we have lots of people.
I mean, we should stick to well trained volunteers, but it still won't be a problem.
A better interpretation of that mandate is that they should immediately cease all operational activities and devote 100% of their resources to propulsion technology research.
The problem is that chemical rockets are a terrible way to escape the gravity well we live in.
Make this more than an assertion. There are already people tracking and projecting hundreds of the most dangerous objects in the solar system, and gravity tugs working over decades are quite likely to be economical and effective.
As far as comets, the statistics aren't anywhere near the certain you are complaining about if you figure that a 100,000 year time window is probably reasonable for establishing an actual self sustaining off planet colony. Given that window, we should figure out how to make a government that doesn't spend itself into ruin before we worry about space colonies.
Yes, but it is like buying a computer. Sometimes, the best thing to do is just to wait a while.
I use a 40-something character phrase with my password safe. Since there aren't any drastic consequences for failure, I just use beep and mash (that is, I retype it when I get it wrong) until I get it right.
After a while, it stopped mattering as I started getting it right nearly every time (though I just checked and I had a re-occurrence of a problem where I insert a certain character (I know this because I can sort of watch myself mash the keys by now)).
In this particular case, the girl wasn't even carrying anything.
Anyway, nothing I said really precludes the school having a way to appropriately dispense drugs to the student. I'm not sure if that means just letting the kids carry bottles of pills or if it means having them go get them from the nurse. It certainly isn't ridiculous for the administrator to want to discuss whether the student should be taking pills with the parents (especially given the hysteria about kids and prescription drugs; I'd take it less seriously, but my mother actually had a break in at her house which was most likely kids looking for drugs...).
My concern isn't really that the kids would be carrying around ibuprofen, it is more to acknowledge that letting them casually carry around ibuprofen makes it harder to notice that they are carrying other drugs (and removing students who are abusing prescription drugs is well within what I think the school should be doing).
It's sort of an interesting circle. The administrators seem to think that they will share blame if a 13 year old sneaks drugs to another 13 year old while in school. This strikes me as a bit ridiculous and it seems like such an attitude would contribute to them going way to far in the name of zero tolerance. If the administrators didn't feel they were expected to live up to an impossible standard
(13 year olds aren't dumb), they might not be so quick to do idiotic things.
I certainly think the administrator should be able to confiscate any pills students are observed with; I'm not afraid of ibuprofen, and if the student refuses, the resolution should be to contact the parents or police, not to strip search them, but they do actually need to have some ability to actually run their building, which means expecting certain behavior from students and the ability to get rid of students who comply (that sounds all fascist, but that isn't the way I mean it, I just mean that disruptive students shouldn't get to piss all over the other kids; odd story, that actually happened at my junior high. I'm glad I wasn't involved.).
You make it an option in the browser. None of the other aspects of password fields need to change.
And since 'they' are all childish caricatures of 'real' people, they will eat up with their baby food spoons.
Calling it optimized is a bit much. Maybe it accidentally works better there, or something like that.
The entire series of TI graphing calculators has unit conversions built in (the input is [number][unit][unit] and it outputs a number, it doesn't track the units). I imagine most higher end graphing calculators do, but I'm not sure (I was required to have such a calculator for several of the math classes I took in school...).
As far as the arithmetic, people don't practice it, so they are bad (or just slow) at it, and calculators are easy, so most people use them.
"Comfort"? Microsoft prints money, Apple does the hard work of building computers.