amazon should go to jail, i think. they get a competitive advantage over brick and mortar stores by dodging taxes (in an industry with razor thin margins, avoiding 10%+ in tax is a huge advantage). Then they put brick and mortar out of business, and people must use amazon to save some pennies because they dont have jobs.
i agree! I used to think of companies as some sort of stand-alone entity, but now I understand that companies are just collective groups of people, and will manifest the same mix of logic, emotion, and fear that people do. Understnading this goes a long way to understanding why companies behave teh way they do, and knowing how best to interact with them.
in my experience, ie9 is really good. it's 2x better than ie8, and 10x better than ie7. on macs, my fave browser is safari. in windoz, my fave browser is ie9. second fave is ffx, third is safari, fourth is chrome.
Sure there's a place for it, but the shear drain on logging in and posting inane crap is just too much and too boring, wasted time and energy for nought.
look at the slashdot headline - "self-sustaining solar reactor creates clean hydrogen". self sustaining implies some sort of perpetual motion. as i showed above, this is NOT perpetual motion, nor is it self sustaining!
further, this is no sort of "solar reactor". It's a hydrogen producer with zinc oxide catalyst, in which the catalyst is regenerated using solar energy (whether its electricity or solar thermal is unclear).
all i'm trying to do is tone down the scientific hyperbole a bit, and get back to whats real. I'm surprised you're not in favor of that. perhaps you're a science journalist?
I'm not inclined to read TFA, since at first glance it's obv flawed. why waste the time?
are you being dense on purpose, or is that just your MO?
the zinc catalyst is consumed in this process. you need to add more zinc to keep it going. it is converted to zinc oxide. then you need to add energy from an external power source to regenerate the catalyst.
the article is claming "free hydrogen from sunlight" because they're proposing to use solar to power the regeneration. But this isn't anything special - you could just as easily use coal, and it's no longer as "green." alternatively, you could power eloctoralysis from solar, and it would be equally "green".
all i'm saying is that this is being treated as a miracle new perpertual motion hydrogen making machine, when if you look at it critically, you see that it's not.
ffs, for all we know, Z bashed his own head into the ground after the fact. That's the problem when there are *no witnesses*!
The one piece of evidence that would be most helpful is the position of shooter and victim at the time of shooting. Was martin shot in the front or back? was he already on the ground, and if so, shot from above?
Nopee. Zinc is recovered. you need to do another chemical process to make zinc oxide. gee, i wonder how green that process is, which gives us green hydrogen?
Fist bump, clean hydrogen from a sustainable, renewable, source. Except for the consumption of zinc oxide catalyst... Maybe not self sustaining after all?
Dude, thank you for confirming my argument. When there are no witnesses, SYG = shoot first. The guy who shoots first can make up a story about why it was justified, and the guy who doesn't shoot first, dies. Case in point, you accept his story about walking back to the car, etc, etc.
How is it a mis characterization? THere is. Sme Oort of conflict between two people. One of them shoots the other. Then he tells everybody a story about what happened. History is written by the winners, I guess? The only protection is to Stand Your Ground before the other guy Stands His Ground.
he didn't start the fight.. according to him and not corroborated by any witnesses, he was walking back to his car when trayvon confronted him and attacked him. There is no evidence that points to trayvon being the aggressor.
also, everyone keeps calling trayvon an unarmed child, but if a 160+ pound man -- and a 17 year old is a man -- were to be sitting on top of you smashing your head into the pavement, and there is no evidence that this happened so it's disingenouous to even bring it up , it would be deadly force and it would be entirely appropriate to respond in kind. But since there's no evidence that this happened, the whole argument is theoretical and not applicable.
that's the problem with the Shoot First law - you only have one story, from the shooter. Given this limitation, i'd say that (1) is the proximate coause.
1. EVs are a small part of the market, but we need to subsidize them so they can compete with the entrenched oil monopoly.
orthoganal to the issue at hand. I agree about subsidizing EVs, but it has nothing to do with wind farms in Canada.
2. Uh, oil can too be used for electricity. Anything combustible is capable of producing electricity.
Sure, any hydrocarbon can be burned for electricity. But in today's grid oil is not used. so the submittor's argument that wind farms would displace oil consumption is false. similarly, the argument that wind farms can be justified by the high price of oil is false.
energy is not a big pot of energy. Wind turbines produce electricity. petroleum produces gasoline and diesel. There's no risk of substitution - rising oil prices will still be expensive for gasoline, regardless of the number of wind turbines.
before the comments come back:
1) EVs would bridge the gap, but in the next few years they are less than 1% of vehicles = no impact.
2) unlike oil, natural gas can be used for electricity. but the summary is wrong. while oil prices have been going up, gas prices are constant / down.
help me understand. this law makes it illegal to do two specific acts while having one specific intent. Is that correct?
"Using a digital device", it is illegal to
Act 1: use any obscene, lewd or profane language
Act 2: suggest any lewd or lascivious act
Act 3: threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person.
And these out only be illegal if a person has an "intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend".
Am I parsing this correctly? If you look at my comment history, you'll certainly see that I often troll with the intent to annoy, but I never commit any of the three acts above (actually, sometimes I use profane language...). Would my "trolling to annoy" actions be illegal under this law?
Further, what is the jurisdiction? Do the troll-er and troll-ee have to be in AZ? What if the troll-er is in AZ but the troll-ee is elsewhere? Does it matter where the servers are located?
Hmm, perhaps I didn't get the wording exactly right, but I was completely honest in 1) the absurdity of this joke of a statement, made by the most powerful man in the world, and 2) the idiocy of a president who was elected in a botched election that did not reflect voter intent.
btw, it looks like you're "defending" the guy by saying he can't read a cue card correctly.
Slashdot Mirror
taxes should be paid by where the customer is at, not where the business is at. It's the only way to put businesses on the same playing field level.
i dont understand... 16 bit is like the snes. would the game be like a snes game?
amazon should go to jail, i think. they get a competitive advantage over brick and mortar stores by dodging taxes (in an industry with razor thin margins, avoiding 10%+ in tax is a huge advantage). Then they put brick and mortar out of business, and people must use amazon to save some pennies because they dont have jobs.
i agree! I used to think of companies as some sort of stand-alone entity, but now I understand that companies are just collective groups of people, and will manifest the same mix of logic, emotion, and fear that people do. Understnading this goes a long way to understanding why companies behave teh way they do, and knowing how best to interact with them.
in my experience, ie9 is really good. it's 2x better than ie8, and 10x better than ie7. on macs, my fave browser is safari. in windoz, my fave browser is ie9. second fave is ffx, third is safari, fourth is chrome.
Sure there's a place for it, but the shear drain on logging in and posting inane crap is just too much and too boring, wasted time and energy for nought.
posted on slashdot...
look at the slashdot headline - "self-sustaining solar reactor creates clean hydrogen". self sustaining implies some sort of perpetual motion. as i showed above, this is NOT perpetual motion, nor is it self sustaining!
further, this is no sort of "solar reactor". It's a hydrogen producer with zinc oxide catalyst, in which the catalyst is regenerated using solar energy (whether its electricity or solar thermal is unclear).
all i'm trying to do is tone down the scientific hyperbole a bit, and get back to whats real. I'm surprised you're not in favor of that. perhaps you're a science journalist?
I'm not inclined to read TFA, since at first glance it's obv flawed. why waste the time?
the zinc catalyst is consumed in this process. you need to add more zinc to keep it going. it is converted to zinc oxide. then you need to add energy from an external power source to regenerate the catalyst.
the article is claming "free hydrogen from sunlight" because they're proposing to use solar to power the regeneration. But this isn't anything special - you could just as easily use coal, and it's no longer as "green." alternatively, you could power eloctoralysis from solar, and it would be equally "green".
all i'm saying is that this is being treated as a miracle new perpertual motion hydrogen making machine, when if you look at it critically, you see that it's not.
The one piece of evidence that would be most helpful is the position of shooter and victim at the time of shooting. Was martin shot in the front or back? was he already on the ground, and if so, shot from above?
Nopee. Zinc is recovered. you need to do another chemical process to make zinc oxide. gee, i wonder how green that process is, which gives us green hydrogen?
~0 power plants are run on oil or propane. check your facts.
Fist bump, clean hydrogen from a sustainable, renewable, source. Except for the consumption of zinc oxide catalyst... Maybe not self sustaining after all?
Dude, thank you for confirming my argument. When there are no witnesses, SYG = shoot first. The guy who shoots first can make up a story about why it was justified, and the guy who doesn't shoot first, dies. Case in point, you accept his story about walking back to the car, etc, etc.
How is it a mis characterization? THere is. Sme Oort of conflict between two people. One of them shoots the other. Then he tells everybody a story about what happened. History is written by the winners, I guess? The only protection is to Stand Your Ground before the other guy Stands His Ground.
[citation needed]. you're placing your faith in lies.
he didn't start the fight.. according to him and not corroborated by any witnesses, he was walking back to his car when trayvon confronted him and attacked him. There is no evidence that points to trayvon being the aggressor.
also, everyone keeps calling trayvon an unarmed child, but if a 160+ pound man -- and a 17 year old is a man -- were to be sitting on top of you smashing your head into the pavement , and there is no evidence that this happened so it's disingenouous to even bring it up , it would be deadly force and it would be entirely appropriate to respond in kind. But since there's no evidence that this happened, the whole argument is theoretical and not applicable .
ftfy. wow, that was a lot of fixing!
1.) Zimmerman gets out of car
2.) no witnesses as to what happened
3.) Zimmerman shoots and kills Trayvon
that's the problem with the Shoot First law - you only have one story, from the shooter. Given this limitation, i'd say that (1) is the proximate coause.
1. EVs are a small part of the market, but we need to subsidize them so they can compete with the entrenched oil monopoly.
orthoganal to the issue at hand. I agree about subsidizing EVs, but it has nothing to do with wind farms in Canada.
2. Uh, oil can too be used for electricity. Anything combustible is capable of producing electricity.
Sure, any hydrocarbon can be burned for electricity. But in today's grid oil is not used. so the submittor's argument that wind farms would displace oil consumption is false. similarly, the argument that wind farms can be justified by the high price of oil is false.
before the comments come back:
1) EVs would bridge the gap, but in the next few years they are less than 1% of vehicles = no impact.
2) unlike oil, natural gas can be used for electricity. but the summary is wrong. while oil prices have been going up, gas prices are constant / down.
oh crap hopefully they won't combine anti-trolling regulations with Stand Your Ground!
"Me fail English? That's un possible!"
ftfy, but yes your post is funny and applicable!
"Using a digital device", it is illegal to
Act 1: use any obscene, lewd or profane language
Act 2: suggest any lewd or lascivious act
Act 3: threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person.
And these out only be illegal if a person has an "intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend".
Am I parsing this correctly? If you look at my comment history, you'll certainly see that I often troll with the intent to annoy, but I never commit any of the three acts above (actually, sometimes I use profane language...). Would my "trolling to annoy" actions be illegal under this law?
Further, what is the jurisdiction? Do the troll-er and troll-ee have to be in AZ? What if the troll-er is in AZ but the troll-ee is elsewhere? Does it matter where the servers are located?
Any insights are appreciated.
It's not a problem thT he wS reading, it's a problem myth he misspoke and made a stupid.
YO DAWG, i heard you don't like scooby, so I put some tv in your tv so you can watch while you watch.
btw, it looks like you're "defending" the guy by saying he can't read a cue card correctly.