You really think so? Let's take a look at that....
The US currently uses about 9 million barrels of gasoline a day. 42 gallons per barrel, 365 days a year gives about 138 billion gallons a year used.
Current average gas price in the US is $3.88. Subtract that from $10, and the government would have to be subsidizing $6.12 a gallon. Multiply that by the 138 billion gallons, and that's an outlay of a tad over $844 billion a year.
The total US government budget for 2012 is $3.7 trillion... which would make this gasoline subsidy be about 23% of the total US government budget. I submit that an expense of this magnitude would be extremely difficult to hide, and therefore, gas isn't 'really' costing $10 a gallon.
Yes - because everyone knows that anyone can move at any time they wish. There's no expenses involved in moving at all. There's no risk involved in moving to another country. No countries in the world have immigration requirements, work visa requirements, or anything like that -- anyone who wants to is free to move into any country and just start working there!
Not.
For most people, moving is a major undertaking. You have to sell your home or be willing to abandon it. If there's a mortgage on it, you have to hope that you can actually get enough money out of selling it to pay it off -- otherwise, you're going to be stuck paying for a home that you don't even have any more. Then there's the expenses involved in actually transporting yourself, your family, and any stuff that you want to keep.
And, of course, before you move, you probably want to have a place to move to. Let's see... if you're in Pakistan, the surrounding countries are Iran, Afghanistan, and India. So, two nations that are also Muslim-dominated and not extremely friendly to non-Muslims -- one of which is currently a war zone as well -- and a nation where your ethnic group (if you're a Pakistani) is hated.
Yeah.
So you're not going to be able to just move into a neighboring country. That means you're looking at a trip by sea or air, for you and your family -- and that's expensive. Once you get there, you'll need to find a place to live, get a work visa, and find a job that makes enough money to support you and your family. And you need to have enough money accumulated to support yourself for the time that it will take to do all that. Oh, and don't forget about all those things that most civilized countries expect when you move into somewhere, like security deposits, service connection fees, and the like.
Of course, some people do the thing of "move somewhere else, get a job there, send back money to my family until I can save up enough for them all to move as well". But that carries a lot of risk -- you're leaving those you care the most about in the hell-hole you were trying to get out of. And you're separated from your family for that time, which is likely to be months or years.
You can do some groundwork ahead of time -- go to the embassy of the country you want to move to and apply for a visa there, for example, and use the Internet to search for a job in the place you're moving to. With some countries, this leads to a chicken-and-egg problem, where many employers don't want to offer a job to someone who doesn't already have a work visa, but the government doesn't want to give you a work visa unless you already have good job prospects. If you have valuable skills, that'll help, but not everyone has those. And, of course, not everyone lives close to an embassy, or has unrestricted Internet access.
This whole problem is part of why "ethnic neighborhoods" spring up -- people leaving the country move to where relatives who have already left the country are, so they can have a place to stay, contacts to help them find a job, etc. Of course, that only works if you have relatives who have left the country, and they've gone somewhere that you think will actually be better, and they're willing to help you. If you're part of a small minority in your home country, these things are statistically less likely for you.
Oh, and for security, if you're part of a persecuted minority, you may need to keep your preparations secret, since others may see you as an easier target ("He's going to be leaving the country, he won't be able to go to court against me!") or a more fruitful one ("He's got to be saving a bunch of money to take with him! We could get it all!") because of them. Or people who hate you may try to trump up something against you to keep you from leaving. Of course, keeping your preparations secret may make it hard to do things like find a buyer for your home, so you may be faced with a choice between risking what people might do if they learn you're trying to leav
And if you can get a big enough batch of sincere managers together, then on Halloween night, the Great Manager will rise from the manager batch, and --
The original post was about light bulbs -- the post you replied to which started this 'thread' of the discussion, however, was stating that heat pumps are more efficient than incandescent lightbulbs as a way to use electricity to heat a space. That involves much more than just the efficiency of electrical circuits, since heat pumps draw heat from another source.
You're the one who chose which post you were going to reply to. If you didn't want to talk about heat pumps and how they work, you should have chosen another post. You're not 'correcting' anything -- you're simply trying to backpedal now that you've realized you were wrong about how heat pumps work.
Pointing out that you and those you're disagreeing with are talking about two different things is hardly "capitulating". You're correct insofar as you go, but what you're talking about isn't relevant to what they're talking about -- the fact that as far as efficiency of electricity use goes, a heat pump is much, much better than using incandescent lights for heating.
The transducer portion of your equation is the conversion step from electricity applied to heat output.
I didn't have an equation anywhere. But if you're going to insist that the "transducer portion" is the conversion from electricity applied to heat output, then a heat pump is more than 100% efficient, since it supplies more heat energy to the target area than the amount of electricity input.
We're talking about lightbulbs here. They throw off light, but also heat in the conversion step. That's the "work" they do in the circuit. My arguments have been based solely on that efficiency-- electrical efficiency, and no other additive or other domain measurements.
The person you were replying to was stating that using electricity to power a heat pump is much more efficient than using it to power an incandescent bulb, if what you want is to heat a space. How heat pumps work is relevant to that, no matter how you try to dodge.
GE is now making fluorescent Reveal bulbs. I put the 4' long tube-type in my kitchen, and they give very nice light -- bright and warmly-colored. I haven't tried their CFLs, but if they give the same light as the tubes, they'd definitely be great incandescent replacements.
No, you are describing heat pump efficiency. You aren't describing thermodynamic efficiency, but the people buying heat pumps don't care about that, since the heat coming into the system from the outside environment has no cost to them.
From what you've written, you don't understand what a heat pump is and does. So let's try this again:
There's no "transducer" converting electricity to heat in a heat pump. The primary parts of a heat pump are a compressor, a condenser, an evaporator, and an expansion valve. The compressor takes fluid, compresses it, and sends it into the condenser. Doing this raises the temperature of the fluid to a temperature above that of the surrounding area, so that heat flows from the fluid to the surrounding area, heating that area. On its way to another area, the fluid passes through an expansion valve, which lowers the pressure the fluid is under, into the evaporator. This causes the temperature of the fluid to drop to where it is below that of the surrounding area, so that heat flows from the surrounding area to the fluid, heating the fluid (and cooling the surrounding area).
Thus, heat is moved from one area to another. Since the heat is not coming from the supplied power, but rather, from the area around the evaporator, the amount of heat let out on the heating side can be greater than the amount of power supplied.
To put it another way: Let's say your house has a fireplace, but you want to have heat in other rooms. So, you take a bunch of bricks, lay them in front of the fire, and let them heat up. When they're hot, you carry them into the rooms you want to heat. When the bricks in a room start to get cold, you take them back to the fireplace to heat again, and grab hot bricks to take back to the room.
The heat pump here is you, carrying the bricks back and forth. Your energy is being used to move the bricks, not to heat them -- it's the fire that heats them. In the same way, the heat pump isn't what's creating the heat -- it's simply moving fluid around, which is getting its heat from its surroundings while it's in the evaporator.
Now, the compressor will be less than 100% efficient in converting electrical energy to kinetic energy as it moves the fluid around -- but since heat pump users are less interested in how well their heat pump moves fluid, and more interested in how much heat it can output, and the heat being supplied from the outside environment is effectively free, heat pumps have their efficiency rated in how much heat the condenser outputs under normal operating conditions vs. how much electrical energy is supplied to them, and that number is more than 100%. That's not thermodynamic efficiency, which can never exceed 100%, but it's the efficiency that the people using heat pumps care about.
For day-to-day usage, the idea is to have enough range to get you through the day. Then, once you're home, you plug the car in and let it charge while you're doing other things -- because unlike refueling with gas, where someone needs to be there in case there's a malfunction and fuel spills, you can let an electric vehicle charge unattended.
Thus, you're not spending 180 minutes a week charging the car. The car is charging for that much time, but *you* spend about a minute per day total in plugging it in at night, then unplugging it in the morning, for a total of about 6 minutes a week of *your* time spent doing it.
I'll agree that it's still a significant disadvantage on long trips, but for day-to-day use, it's actually more convenient than refueling a gas car, because you don't have to make a stop at a gas station -- you do it somewhere that you're going anyway.
When I went to college, the university I was at had an introduction to computing class. It was a "history and use of computers" sort of thing, with some talk about what computers are used for, a light introduction to programming, these are the parts of a computer, this is what a database is and some things you might use it for, all that sort of thing. It was in general track and was a 1000 level class (freshman-level, like a 10X at many colleges). It was taught out of the computer science department.
The university's computer support center ran classes in Word, Excel, Access, Photoshop, etc. These were on nights and weekends, and they weren't school-style classes -- they were more like training classes, where you'd sit there in the lab for four hours getting a little lecture, but mostly doing exercises of 'format this page to have such-and-such margins' and the like. Each one was a single session. These classes were free for students, but didn't count for any sort of college credit. They had 'basic' and 'advanced' classes for each software package they taught. The packages taught were those that were already on the computers in the computer labs.
The university also ran a "center for professional development", which taught more intensive classes on these sorts of things, and was aimed at job training. Classes there were evening classes on weekdays and were about an hour and a half long, meeting one or two days a week for two to six weeks. These were aimed at adults with jobs who wanted to learn new skills, and the curriculum was broader than the computer support center's, including not just office applications, but also things like retouching photos with Photoshop, web site creation with Dreamweaver, etc. I knew a few people who took those classes, and according to them, each had a primary software package that the students were supposed to use, but also spent a little bit of time talking about alternative packages, including free ones, and the teachers would accept work done with other packages, as long as the final format was something they could view with the course's main package. The CPD classes cost money, but since there were much shorter than college classes and didn't give college credit, they were much, much cheaper.
This always struck me as a good mix: the college class was more theoretical. College students could either pick up the actual skills at using the programs themselves or take the classes from computer support to learn to use the specific packages the computer labs had. And lastly, those interested in more in-depth job training involving computers had options for that.
The Jewish Bible says that anyone who sacrifices to any other god is to be destroyed (Exodus 22:20), and that it's okay to make slaves out of unbelievers (Leviticus 25:44-46). Obviously, no peace can be made with belief systems like that.
I've had that problem as well -- buy a few presents for someone, then get tons of ads targeted at that. I think part of the problem is over-sensitivity to "trends" in the algorithms -- that is, giving too much weight to the most recent purchases.
On the subject of Amazon... Amazon thankfully has a way to tell it "I already own this" when it recommends something... but I've never found a way to do that when it doesn't recommend the thing in question. I've got a book series I've been buying that I'd *love* to pro-actively go through and tell Amazon the dozen-odd titles I already have, so it won't keep recommending them, but right now, I'm having to wait for it to recommend each one. That gets worse because it's an old series (started in the late '50s) which went through many editions... and each edition of each book is listed separately. Thus, I've had to tell it that I already have some of the books four times -- once for each of the editions it was printed in.
Amazon also allows you to go into your past purchases and specify which ones you don't want them to base recommendations off of, which is helpful. Unfortunately, there's no such option for things that you simply looked at.
Also, their recommendations sometimes seem to need a little more intelligence. Offering similar books to someone who's bought books make sense. Offering other brands of PVRs to someone who just bought a PVR doesn't. In my case, I recently bought a fencing mask... and now Amazon is constantly recommending other fencing masks to me. I only have one head. I don't need two fencing masks.
This is getting a bit rambly, so to sum up -- I don't mind targeted ads, especially from retailers who I'm buying things from. However, I do wish they'd allow me more input of the "don't recommend this again" and "don't use this for future recommendations" sort, and that they'd apply some world-logic to their recommendations as well. Amazon has made a good start on the first part. The idea someone posted further up of having a standardized way to up-vote and down-vote ads seems like a good one. And I do believe that they should allow people to opt out of the tracking entirely, if that's their wish.
He's being downmodded because the poster in question has been pushing his "you can fix everything with hosts files!" solution on Slashdot with spammy posts for a long, long time. Yes, this time, he's actually on-topic -- but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
While his solution works reasonably well, it's so obvious that anyone with even a bit of network knowledge who wants to do it is pretty much already doing it. But for some reason known only to him, this guy is on a holy crusade to get people to stop using ad-blockers and instead to use hosts files. Many people in the past have already pointed out to him that using hosts files for this has disadvantages as well, and have asked him to stop repetitively posting this, but he won't listen.
So, the Boy Who Cried Wolf is being modded down for crying "Wolf!", even though there's a wolf in the area this time, because people know that going "Yes, you're right this time! Thank you!" would only encourage him to cry "Wolf!" more often.
That's just what they want you to think. Contrary to what zombie movies show, decomposing corpses tend to float very well. There's no reason to suppose that the corpse being animated would change this.
Now the question is: who does it benefit to spread the myth that boats are safe from zombies? Hmm.....
An "electrical ground" is simply a large reservoir of neutral charge -- large enough that sending our stray voltage into it won't significantly raise it's own potential. On land, a wire is sunk into the earth (i.e., into the ground, which is why it's called a "ground") for this purpose.
On a ship, ground wires are simply tied into a metal part of the ship that will have constant contact with the water -- thus, the body of water the ship is in is used as that reservoir of neutral charge. (Of course, that body of water is most likely in contact with the earth, which can further absorb the stray electrons.) To get a "decent ground", you want a large enough surface of metal in touch with the water, and want the wiring system tied to that metal body to be able to handle the charges involved should something short to ground.
IMDB has been the most popular site for movie information pretty much since there was a web at all. In fact, the database itself predates the rise of the World Wide Web, having originally started on UseNet.
$150? That'd be a 3DS. A new DS is $100 from Best Buy. $70 if you get a refurbished one. Go down to GameStop, and you can get a used one for even less. Hit a pawn shop or ebay, and you can go even lower. I'd be willing to bet that Goodwill and similar places have some for sale fairly cheaply as well.
And don't forget, even the poor have relatives. Mom & Dad may be too proud to take money from their parents or siblings, but you can bet the kids won't mind getting a shiny new electronic toy for a birthday or Christmas from their aunt, uncle, or grandparent. And going back to the used bit above, a lot of younger kids get consoles and such as hand-me-downs from an older brother or sister in high school or college... who may have bought it with their own money, from their own job.
My family wasn't poverty-level poor when I was a kid, but we were poor... and quite a few of the nicer toys that I got came from my oldest brother, who went into the Navy right out of high school, and was flush with cash for a few years, until he decided to move off-base.
Yes, they are non-profit corporations, and as such, hold trademarks on their logos, company names, etc. So the Republican Party would be able to sue you for trademark infringement.
You do realize that most startups fail, right? Entrepreneurs run a serious risk of working their butts off, and having nothing to show for it three, five, twenty years later. Except in the entrepreneur's case, that 'working their butts off' is more literal (since running a startup easily takes a lot more than 40 hours a week), and that 'nothing to show for it' may be followed by 'except a big load of debt'.
The Voyager's main ICs were custom-made, using a silicon-on-sapphire process, which helps make them radiation-resistant. From a classification point of view, it's considered a type of CMOS chip. Much of the surrounding control circuitry is, however, implemented in BJT.
One thing that almost caused problems with Voyager 2 is lubrication for the moving parts. I can't find anything about what they used for lubricant, but it would need to not boil away in vacuum, and even a very slow leak would be a problem after 35 years.
Slashdot Mirror
You really think so? Let's take a look at that....
The US currently uses about 9 million barrels of gasoline a day. 42 gallons per barrel, 365 days a year gives about 138 billion gallons a year used.
Current average gas price in the US is $3.88. Subtract that from $10, and the government would have to be subsidizing $6.12 a gallon. Multiply that by the 138 billion gallons, and that's an outlay of a tad over $844 billion a year.
The total US government budget for 2012 is $3.7 trillion... which would make this gasoline subsidy be about 23% of the total US government budget. I submit that an expense of this magnitude would be extremely difficult to hide, and therefore, gas isn't 'really' costing $10 a gallon.
Yes - because everyone knows that anyone can move at any time they wish. There's no expenses involved in moving at all. There's no risk involved in moving to another country. No countries in the world have immigration requirements, work visa requirements, or anything like that -- anyone who wants to is free to move into any country and just start working there!
Not.
For most people, moving is a major undertaking. You have to sell your home or be willing to abandon it. If there's a mortgage on it, you have to hope that you can actually get enough money out of selling it to pay it off -- otherwise, you're going to be stuck paying for a home that you don't even have any more. Then there's the expenses involved in actually transporting yourself, your family, and any stuff that you want to keep.
And, of course, before you move, you probably want to have a place to move to. Let's see... if you're in Pakistan, the surrounding countries are Iran, Afghanistan, and India. So, two nations that are also Muslim-dominated and not extremely friendly to non-Muslims -- one of which is currently a war zone as well -- and a nation where your ethnic group (if you're a Pakistani) is hated.
Yeah.
So you're not going to be able to just move into a neighboring country. That means you're looking at a trip by sea or air, for you and your family -- and that's expensive. Once you get there, you'll need to find a place to live, get a work visa, and find a job that makes enough money to support you and your family. And you need to have enough money accumulated to support yourself for the time that it will take to do all that. Oh, and don't forget about all those things that most civilized countries expect when you move into somewhere, like security deposits, service connection fees, and the like.
Of course, some people do the thing of "move somewhere else, get a job there, send back money to my family until I can save up enough for them all to move as well". But that carries a lot of risk -- you're leaving those you care the most about in the hell-hole you were trying to get out of. And you're separated from your family for that time, which is likely to be months or years.
You can do some groundwork ahead of time -- go to the embassy of the country you want to move to and apply for a visa there, for example, and use the Internet to search for a job in the place you're moving to. With some countries, this leads to a chicken-and-egg problem, where many employers don't want to offer a job to someone who doesn't already have a work visa, but the government doesn't want to give you a work visa unless you already have good job prospects. If you have valuable skills, that'll help, but not everyone has those. And, of course, not everyone lives close to an embassy, or has unrestricted Internet access.
This whole problem is part of why "ethnic neighborhoods" spring up -- people leaving the country move to where relatives who have already left the country are, so they can have a place to stay, contacts to help them find a job, etc. Of course, that only works if you have relatives who have left the country, and they've gone somewhere that you think will actually be better, and they're willing to help you. If you're part of a small minority in your home country, these things are statistically less likely for you.
Oh, and for security, if you're part of a persecuted minority, you may need to keep your preparations secret, since others may see you as an easier target ("He's going to be leaving the country, he won't be able to go to court against me!") or a more fruitful one ("He's got to be saving a bunch of money to take with him! We could get it all!") because of them. Or people who hate you may try to trump up something against you to keep you from leaving. Of course, keeping your preparations secret may make it hard to do things like find a buyer for your home, so you may be faced with a choice between risking what people might do if they learn you're trying to leav
And if you can get a big enough batch of sincere managers together, then on Halloween night, the Great Manager will rise from the manager batch, and --
No, wait, that's pumpkins. And patches.
Never mind.
The original post was about light bulbs -- the post you replied to which started this 'thread' of the discussion, however, was stating that heat pumps are more efficient than incandescent lightbulbs as a way to use electricity to heat a space. That involves much more than just the efficiency of electrical circuits, since heat pumps draw heat from another source.
You're the one who chose which post you were going to reply to. If you didn't want to talk about heat pumps and how they work, you should have chosen another post. You're not 'correcting' anything -- you're simply trying to backpedal now that you've realized you were wrong about how heat pumps work.
Your last paragraph capitulates to my argument.
Pointing out that you and those you're disagreeing with are talking about two different things is hardly "capitulating". You're correct insofar as you go, but what you're talking about isn't relevant to what they're talking about -- the fact that as far as efficiency of electricity use goes, a heat pump is much, much better than using incandescent lights for heating.
The transducer portion of your equation is the conversion step from electricity applied to heat output.
I didn't have an equation anywhere. But if you're going to insist that the "transducer portion" is the conversion from electricity applied to heat output, then a heat pump is more than 100% efficient, since it supplies more heat energy to the target area than the amount of electricity input.
We're talking about lightbulbs here. They throw off light, but also heat in the conversion step. That's the "work" they do in the circuit. My arguments have been based solely on that efficiency-- electrical efficiency, and no other additive or other domain measurements.
The person you were replying to was stating that using electricity to power a heat pump is much more efficient than using it to power an incandescent bulb, if what you want is to heat a space. How heat pumps work is relevant to that, no matter how you try to dodge.
GE is now making fluorescent Reveal bulbs. I put the 4' long tube-type in my kitchen, and they give very nice light -- bright and warmly-colored. I haven't tried their CFLs, but if they give the same light as the tubes, they'd definitely be great incandescent replacements.
No, you are describing heat pump efficiency. You aren't describing thermodynamic efficiency, but the people buying heat pumps don't care about that, since the heat coming into the system from the outside environment has no cost to them.
From what you've written, you don't understand what a heat pump is and does. So let's try this again:
There's no "transducer" converting electricity to heat in a heat pump. The primary parts of a heat pump are a compressor, a condenser, an evaporator, and an expansion valve. The compressor takes fluid, compresses it, and sends it into the condenser. Doing this raises the temperature of the fluid to a temperature above that of the surrounding area, so that heat flows from the fluid to the surrounding area, heating that area. On its way to another area, the fluid passes through an expansion valve, which lowers the pressure the fluid is under, into the evaporator. This causes the temperature of the fluid to drop to where it is below that of the surrounding area, so that heat flows from the surrounding area to the fluid, heating the fluid (and cooling the surrounding area).
Thus, heat is moved from one area to another. Since the heat is not coming from the supplied power, but rather, from the area around the evaporator, the amount of heat let out on the heating side can be greater than the amount of power supplied.
To put it another way: Let's say your house has a fireplace, but you want to have heat in other rooms. So, you take a bunch of bricks, lay them in front of the fire, and let them heat up. When they're hot, you carry them into the rooms you want to heat. When the bricks in a room start to get cold, you take them back to the fireplace to heat again, and grab hot bricks to take back to the room.
The heat pump here is you, carrying the bricks back and forth. Your energy is being used to move the bricks, not to heat them -- it's the fire that heats them. In the same way, the heat pump isn't what's creating the heat -- it's simply moving fluid around, which is getting its heat from its surroundings while it's in the evaporator.
Now, the compressor will be less than 100% efficient in converting electrical energy to kinetic energy as it moves the fluid around -- but since heat pump users are less interested in how well their heat pump moves fluid, and more interested in how much heat it can output, and the heat being supplied from the outside environment is effectively free, heat pumps have their efficiency rated in how much heat the condenser outputs under normal operating conditions vs. how much electrical energy is supplied to them, and that number is more than 100%. That's not thermodynamic efficiency, which can never exceed 100%, but it's the efficiency that the people using heat pumps care about.
For day-to-day usage, the idea is to have enough range to get you through the day. Then, once you're home, you plug the car in and let it charge while you're doing other things -- because unlike refueling with gas, where someone needs to be there in case there's a malfunction and fuel spills, you can let an electric vehicle charge unattended.
Thus, you're not spending 180 minutes a week charging the car. The car is charging for that much time, but *you* spend about a minute per day total in plugging it in at night, then unplugging it in the morning, for a total of about 6 minutes a week of *your* time spent doing it.
I'll agree that it's still a significant disadvantage on long trips, but for day-to-day use, it's actually more convenient than refueling a gas car, because you don't have to make a stop at a gas station -- you do it somewhere that you're going anyway.
When I went to college, the university I was at had an introduction to computing class. It was a "history and use of computers" sort of thing, with some talk about what computers are used for, a light introduction to programming, these are the parts of a computer, this is what a database is and some things you might use it for, all that sort of thing. It was in general track and was a 1000 level class (freshman-level, like a 10X at many colleges). It was taught out of the computer science department.
The university's computer support center ran classes in Word, Excel, Access, Photoshop, etc. These were on nights and weekends, and they weren't school-style classes -- they were more like training classes, where you'd sit there in the lab for four hours getting a little lecture, but mostly doing exercises of 'format this page to have such-and-such margins' and the like. Each one was a single session. These classes were free for students, but didn't count for any sort of college credit. They had 'basic' and 'advanced' classes for each software package they taught. The packages taught were those that were already on the computers in the computer labs.
The university also ran a "center for professional development", which taught more intensive classes on these sorts of things, and was aimed at job training. Classes there were evening classes on weekdays and were about an hour and a half long, meeting one or two days a week for two to six weeks. These were aimed at adults with jobs who wanted to learn new skills, and the curriculum was broader than the computer support center's, including not just office applications, but also things like retouching photos with Photoshop, web site creation with Dreamweaver, etc. I knew a few people who took those classes, and according to them, each had a primary software package that the students were supposed to use, but also spent a little bit of time talking about alternative packages, including free ones, and the teachers would accept work done with other packages, as long as the final format was something they could view with the course's main package. The CPD classes cost money, but since there were much shorter than college classes and didn't give college credit, they were much, much cheaper.
This always struck me as a good mix: the college class was more theoretical. College students could either pick up the actual skills at using the programs themselves or take the classes from computer support to learn to use the specific packages the computer labs had. And lastly, those interested in more in-depth job training involving computers had options for that.
The Jewish Bible says that anyone who sacrifices to any other god is to be destroyed (Exodus 22:20), and that it's okay to make slaves out of unbelievers (Leviticus 25:44-46). Obviously, no peace can be made with belief systems like that.
That Creator, however, is not necessarily a god -- it could be an evolutionary process.
I've had that problem as well -- buy a few presents for someone, then get tons of ads targeted at that. I think part of the problem is over-sensitivity to "trends" in the algorithms -- that is, giving too much weight to the most recent purchases.
On the subject of Amazon... Amazon thankfully has a way to tell it "I already own this" when it recommends something... but I've never found a way to do that when it doesn't recommend the thing in question. I've got a book series I've been buying that I'd *love* to pro-actively go through and tell Amazon the dozen-odd titles I already have, so it won't keep recommending them, but right now, I'm having to wait for it to recommend each one. That gets worse because it's an old series (started in the late '50s) which went through many editions... and each edition of each book is listed separately. Thus, I've had to tell it that I already have some of the books four times -- once for each of the editions it was printed in.
Amazon also allows you to go into your past purchases and specify which ones you don't want them to base recommendations off of, which is helpful. Unfortunately, there's no such option for things that you simply looked at.
Also, their recommendations sometimes seem to need a little more intelligence. Offering similar books to someone who's bought books make sense. Offering other brands of PVRs to someone who just bought a PVR doesn't. In my case, I recently bought a fencing mask... and now Amazon is constantly recommending other fencing masks to me. I only have one head. I don't need two fencing masks.
This is getting a bit rambly, so to sum up -- I don't mind targeted ads, especially from retailers who I'm buying things from. However, I do wish they'd allow me more input of the "don't recommend this again" and "don't use this for future recommendations" sort, and that they'd apply some world-logic to their recommendations as well. Amazon has made a good start on the first part. The idea someone posted further up of having a standardized way to up-vote and down-vote ads seems like a good one. And I do believe that they should allow people to opt out of the tracking entirely, if that's their wish.
Losing my mods here to explain:
He's being downmodded because the poster in question has been pushing his "you can fix everything with hosts files!" solution on Slashdot with spammy posts for a long, long time. Yes, this time, he's actually on-topic -- but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
While his solution works reasonably well, it's so obvious that anyone with even a bit of network knowledge who wants to do it is pretty much already doing it. But for some reason known only to him, this guy is on a holy crusade to get people to stop using ad-blockers and instead to use hosts files. Many people in the past have already pointed out to him that using hosts files for this has disadvantages as well, and have asked him to stop repetitively posting this, but he won't listen.
So, the Boy Who Cried Wolf is being modded down for crying "Wolf!", even though there's a wolf in the area this time, because people know that going "Yes, you're right this time! Thank you!" would only encourage him to cry "Wolf!" more often.
Busybox is not Gnu; it's licensed under the GPL, but it's not a Gnu project.
If it's an arms race, then obviously the proper solution is a nuclear camera deterrent!
That's just what they want you to think. Contrary to what zombie movies show, decomposing corpses tend to float very well. There's no reason to suppose that the corpse being animated would change this.
Now the question is: who does it benefit to spread the myth that boats are safe from zombies? Hmm.....
An "electrical ground" is simply a large reservoir of neutral charge -- large enough that sending our stray voltage into it won't significantly raise it's own potential. On land, a wire is sunk into the earth (i.e., into the ground, which is why it's called a "ground") for this purpose.
On a ship, ground wires are simply tied into a metal part of the ship that will have constant contact with the water -- thus, the body of water the ship is in is used as that reservoir of neutral charge. (Of course, that body of water is most likely in contact with the earth, which can further absorb the stray electrons.) To get a "decent ground", you want a large enough surface of metal in touch with the water, and want the wiring system tied to that metal body to be able to handle the charges involved should something short to ground.
Tell that to my brother, whose vintage '65 Mustang that my father had restored was stolen -- in 1992.
If they're taking stock options pre-IPO, then yes, they are. The two are not mutually exclusive sets.
IMDB has been the most popular site for movie information pretty much since there was a web at all. In fact, the database itself predates the rise of the World Wide Web, having originally started on UseNet.
$150? That'd be a 3DS. A new DS is $100 from Best Buy. $70 if you get a refurbished one. Go down to GameStop, and you can get a used one for even less. Hit a pawn shop or ebay, and you can go even lower. I'd be willing to bet that Goodwill and similar places have some for sale fairly cheaply as well.
And don't forget, even the poor have relatives. Mom & Dad may be too proud to take money from their parents or siblings, but you can bet the kids won't mind getting a shiny new electronic toy for a birthday or Christmas from their aunt, uncle, or grandparent. And going back to the used bit above, a lot of younger kids get consoles and such as hand-me-downs from an older brother or sister in high school or college... who may have bought it with their own money, from their own job.
My family wasn't poverty-level poor when I was a kid, but we were poor... and quite a few of the nicer toys that I got came from my oldest brother, who went into the Navy right out of high school, and was flush with cash for a few years, until he decided to move off-base.
Yes, they are non-profit corporations, and as such, hold trademarks on their logos, company names, etc. So the Republican Party would be able to sue you for trademark infringement.
You do realize that most startups fail, right? Entrepreneurs run a serious risk of working their butts off, and having nothing to show for it three, five, twenty years later. Except in the entrepreneur's case, that 'working their butts off' is more literal (since running a startup easily takes a lot more than 40 hours a week), and that 'nothing to show for it' may be followed by 'except a big load of debt'.
The Voyager's main ICs were custom-made, using a silicon-on-sapphire process, which helps make them radiation-resistant. From a classification point of view, it's considered a type of CMOS chip. Much of the surrounding control circuitry is, however, implemented in BJT.
One thing that almost caused problems with Voyager 2 is lubrication for the moving parts. I can't find anything about what they used for lubricant, but it would need to not boil away in vacuum, and even a very slow leak would be a problem after 35 years.