Actually, tarmac can be really faulty, like when you don't have any support under it. Asphalt is great under compression, but you can literally break it with your hands if it's under torsion without support.
The "Queensland incident" happened during the winter there (parts of Australia are suffering under record cold right now). Someone either mixed too much solvent into the tar when they were making the asphalt in cool weather, or they just had a bad batch of materials.
Does it bother you when your "it's only isolated incidents" comment just adds another case of false AGW evidence?
When you're continually reminding people that you're saying something _as an employee of the company_, and making the company look bad at the same time, it's not "a right to a personal life" any more, it's "stop making the company look bad, you idiot."
Actually, "normal climate variability" or "a heat wave" explains it nicely.
High daytime temps are NOT part of the catastrophic AGW prediction set, you know. The theory is that NIGHTTIME temps will increase, not daytime, so the overall average goes up.
And when they talk about "consistently higher" temps, they're literally talking about fractions of a degree in most cases.
By the way - there have been a few surveys of weather stations, and the vast majority of them have problems, mostly caused by either encroaching cities (the Urban Heat Island effect) or bad instrument siting. Very, very few stations have consistent records, with relatively untouched siting. The ones that do? Well, they don't show the AGW trend that the others do... and the response by AGW scientists is to adjust the ones that aren't showing the increase (AKA "throwing out the good data so the bad data looks better").
Try this site, for a bit of data that will shock you...
The measurement was next to, and downwind of, a jet aircraft parking area.
The real temperature was probably several degrees cooler at that point. Not even close to a real record.
Ditto for one in Scotland: they recorded "record high heat" exactly when - of all things - an ice cream truck was parked right next to the weather station for an extended period. Running engine + multiple coolers = a lot of extra heat right on top of the thermometer. They already downgraded that one.
Basically, most of the "records" we've been seeing lately are a measurement of Urban Heat Island encroachment and bad station siting, not higher overall temperatures.
(A tip: if you're going to measure temperature trends, don't put vehicles and buildings right next to your instruments...)
If you want to include ads, put them directly in the code. Keep them simple. No autoplay on videos. No sudden sound playback. Don't link out to external sites, that's why so much advertising gets screwed up, and causes slow page load times as a minimum issue.
Don't "protect" your sponsors. If you have to do that, you probably don't want them in the first place. Put the ad up, supply a link to their site, and be done with it.
Other companies have done what reddit is planning on doing. You know... Yahoo!, MySpace, Facebook...
You haven't noticed that the major force behind censorship now is the left?
They're after people for sexual content (the serious feminists hate sexual content they don't approve of), for political content, and whatever else they can get away with.
The current political right just isn't that concerned with sexual censorship, no matter what you may think. They're too busy with other things, to start.
Funny how you're anticipating the people who "don't like the EU," but there just aren't that many of those. There's a lot who don't like the things the EU does, though.
We keep being told how much better the EU is than the US - but then they do something awful like this, which is much, much worse than anything that would be seriously proposed in the US.
There's copyright infringement enforcement, and then there's "fascism disguised as protecting copyright."
the atmospheric impacts of CFCs are not limited to its role as an active ozone reducer. This anthropogenic compound is also a greenhouse gas, with a much higher potential to enhance the greenhouse effect than CO2.
Emphasis added. Don't blame your ignorance on others.
Actually, CFC-11 is NOT a very powerful greenhouse gas. It's about 1/30 as powerful as CO2, for example, mostly because there just isn't very much CFC-11 in the atmosphere. If you add all of the halocarbons together, they're about 1/6 that of CO2 alone.
Just apply very concentrated doses of fertilizer and other "good" soil chemicals - enough to poison the weeds when applied directly, but good for the crop when diluted by irrigation or rain.
...and a couple of their samples were so ridiculously high that it's pretty obvious that they really, REALLY screwed up their tests.
Unless someone is putting out plastic with more than two percent lead by mass. Or with almost eight percent chromium by mass - and nobody in the EU never noticed.
There's something really, really wrong with this study.
...and the amount of energy and other resources used to ship (heavier, so more-costly to make and distribute), return, and clean/disinfect was much, much higher than just selling it in lightweight plastic in the first place.
...a fair number of "pristine" lakes and waterways contain surprising amounts of heavy metals and other nasty things because they pick them up from natural sources. They casually mention it, but it's a bigger problem than you'd think - usually parts per billion, but that's enough to trigger EPA attention by itself, for example.
The other thing to watch out for is the complete lack of useful numbers in the article. The paper itself has them, and they are certainly high. In fact, they're so high it makes you wonder if they screwed up their tests. They claim 23,700 ppm of lead in some plastic samples. Almost 24 parts per thousand? More than TWO PERCENT lead in plastic as part of the manufacturing process? Or a sample with almost EIGHT PERCENT chromium? In plastic? Are they sure they weren't pointing the detector at their car instead?
Sorry, not buying it. Someone either screwed up the analysis, wrote "parts per million" instead of "parts per billion," or something even dumber.
Aside from living in China (which is a nasty business by itself), a whole lot of folks get their "air pollution" by cooking over smoky wood fires in their houses, huts, or shacks.
As mentioned above, the US is currently pretty darned clean, air-wise. I remember watching the smog roll over the hills from L.A. to the High Desert in the early 1980s. It looked like an overdone special effect.
The study claims that nothing else had any measurable effect - once you filtered them out, the effect from lead was exactly the same....which does bring up a couple of small doubts. There are a number of things that SHOULD cause the amount of lead in your system to have an increased or decreased effect, at least on a detectable level.
While it's reasonable that very small doses of lead will have a negative effect, I'd like to see some followup on this one. They say "it causes more deaths," but how much? Ten years off your lifespan? Ten days? Somewhere in between?
It's in The Lancet, after all, and they have a bad habit of occasionally publishing something that's just flat wrong. Vaccines, anyone?
When I'm searching for "drill press," I want drill presses in my search results, with suggestions as a separate list. I also want actual, relevant results, not "completely unrelated things that happen to have the word 'press' in them." And when I limit my search to "drill presses under $200," I want - and I know this is hard to understand - "drill presses under $200."
When I further say "price low to high," I want the same results, sorted in ascending order according to price, not "here's our four most-profitable items, only two of which are actually drill presses in the selected price range," with a link that goes to a PARTIAL list of all of their drill presses, with a dozen or so of the lower-priced ones dropped off the list.
The worst part? The behavior of their search function changed from day to day, even for the same items. That's just wrong.
Amazon is massive, and has been growing fast, and is in a lot of different markets, but they're starting to show some of the limits to sudden growth.
Their Amazon Prime service is getting less reliable. Last year, I could completely rely on two-day shipping for pretty much anything I ordered, but I'm seeing more and more missed or late orders. The search functions for products are, well, inaccurate in many cases. They're also (according to who you talk to) either losing money, or not making anywhere near enough profit margin.
While I enjoy getting things fast and relatively cheap, we're probably going to see some shrinkage of Amazon's power in the physical world - while Amazon Web Services will keep on expanding.
The good news is, they're not Google - who seems to have turned "don't be evil" into "evil is relative." I'd rather have a very powerful company that sells me stuff for low prices than a very powerful company that decides what I need to know, based off of random political beliefs of people I might not agree with.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not.
There's apparently a lot of VR content out there you haven't noticed yet.
And yes, including interactive 3D VR tentacle porn.
Actually, tarmac can be really faulty, like when you don't have any support under it. Asphalt is great under compression, but you can literally break it with your hands if it's under torsion without support.
The "Queensland incident" happened during the winter there (parts of Australia are suffering under record cold right now). Someone either mixed too much solvent into the tar when they were making the asphalt in cool weather, or they just had a bad batch of materials.
Does it bother you when your "it's only isolated incidents" comment just adds another case of false AGW evidence?
When you're continually reminding people that you're saying something _as an employee of the company_, and making the company look bad at the same time, it's not "a right to a personal life" any more, it's "stop making the company look bad, you idiot."
Actually, "normal climate variability" or "a heat wave" explains it nicely.
High daytime temps are NOT part of the catastrophic AGW prediction set, you know. The theory is that NIGHTTIME temps will increase, not daytime, so the overall average goes up.
And when they talk about "consistently higher" temps, they're literally talking about fractions of a degree in most cases.
By the way - there have been a few surveys of weather stations, and the vast majority of them have problems, mostly caused by either encroaching cities (the Urban Heat Island effect) or bad instrument siting. Very, very few stations have consistent records, with relatively untouched siting. The ones that do? Well, they don't show the AGW trend that the others do... and the response by AGW scientists is to adjust the ones that aren't showing the increase (AKA "throwing out the good data so the bad data looks better").
Try this site, for a bit of data that will shock you...
http://www.surfacestations.org/
This is a bit of bad data.
The measurement was next to, and downwind of, a jet aircraft parking area.
The real temperature was probably several degrees cooler at that point. Not even close to a real record.
Ditto for one in Scotland: they recorded "record high heat" exactly when - of all things - an ice cream truck was parked right next to the weather station for an extended period. Running engine + multiple coolers = a lot of extra heat right on top of the thermometer. They already downgraded that one.
Basically, most of the "records" we've been seeing lately are a measurement of Urban Heat Island encroachment and bad station siting, not higher overall temperatures.
(A tip: if you're going to measure temperature trends, don't put vehicles and buildings right next to your instruments...)
If you want to include ads, put them directly in the code. Keep them simple. No autoplay on videos. No sudden sound playback. Don't link out to external sites, that's why so much advertising gets screwed up, and causes slow page load times as a minimum issue.
Don't "protect" your sponsors. If you have to do that, you probably don't want them in the first place. Put the ad up, supply a link to their site, and be done with it.
Other companies have done what reddit is planning on doing. You know... Yahoo!, MySpace, Facebook...
They're apparently selling quite a few Vives. They're keeping up with a fairly rapidly expanding market, at least.
I'm pretty sure he'd take a multimillion-dollar donation to his "charity" in exchange for arranging the sale of a large amount of uranium to Russia.
Oops. "She'd take."
No, it's probably your personality, from the way you quickly went to cursing and blaming everyone else... but you.
It's you.
Try not being you. It might help.
You haven't noticed that the major force behind censorship now is the left?
They're after people for sexual content (the serious feminists hate sexual content they don't approve of), for political content, and whatever else they can get away with.
The current political right just isn't that concerned with sexual censorship, no matter what you may think. They're too busy with other things, to start.
Funny how you're anticipating the people who "don't like the EU," but there just aren't that many of those. There's a lot who don't like the things the EU does, though.
We keep being told how much better the EU is than the US - but then they do something awful like this, which is much, much worse than anything that would be seriously proposed in the US.
There's copyright infringement enforcement, and then there's "fascism disguised as protecting copyright."
the atmospheric impacts of CFCs are not limited to its role as an active ozone reducer. This anthropogenic compound is also a greenhouse gas, with a much higher potential to enhance the greenhouse effect than CO2.
Emphasis added. Don't blame your ignorance on others.
Actually, CFC-11 is NOT a very powerful greenhouse gas. It's about 1/30 as powerful as CO2, for example, mostly because there just isn't very much CFC-11 in the atmosphere. If you add all of the halocarbons together, they're about 1/6 that of CO2 alone.
Just apply very concentrated doses of fertilizer and other "good" soil chemicals - enough to poison the weeds when applied directly, but good for the crop when diluted by irrigation or rain.
The big trick is making sure there's an obvious visual cue that the wings are locked.
The F-4 had a big red pin that stuck up out of the wing if the lock wasn't in place, and dropped down automatically when it DID lock.
Do the same for the Boeing, but put a little LED right next to it so they won't miss it in the dark.
...for over forty years, according to the experts...
...and a couple of their samples were so ridiculously high that it's pretty obvious that they really, REALLY screwed up their tests.
Unless someone is putting out plastic with more than two percent lead by mass. Or with almost eight percent chromium by mass - and nobody in the EU never noticed.
There's something really, really wrong with this study.
...and the amount of energy and other resources used to ship (heavier, so more-costly to make and distribute), return, and clean/disinfect was much, much higher than just selling it in lightweight plastic in the first place.
...a fair number of "pristine" lakes and waterways contain surprising amounts of heavy metals and other nasty things because they pick them up from natural sources. They casually mention it, but it's a bigger problem than you'd think - usually parts per billion, but that's enough to trigger EPA attention by itself, for example.
The other thing to watch out for is the complete lack of useful numbers in the article. The paper itself has them, and they are certainly high. In fact, they're so high it makes you wonder if they screwed up their tests. They claim 23,700 ppm of lead in some plastic samples. Almost 24 parts per thousand? More than TWO PERCENT lead in plastic as part of the manufacturing process? Or a sample with almost EIGHT PERCENT chromium? In plastic? Are they sure they weren't pointing the detector at their car instead?
Sorry, not buying it. Someone either screwed up the analysis, wrote "parts per million" instead of "parts per billion," or something even dumber.
From the prices in the article, they're the same price or lower than the 960 evo.
Of course, it's more expensive than spinning rust, but the throughput is pretty insane.
Aside from living in China (which is a nasty business by itself), a whole lot of folks get their "air pollution" by cooking over smoky wood fires in their houses, huts, or shacks.
As mentioned above, the US is currently pretty darned clean, air-wise. I remember watching the smog roll over the hills from L.A. to the High Desert in the early 1980s. It looked like an overdone special effect.
It's a list of rich gamblers who like to show up, gamble, spend money on pretty much everything in sight, and come back for more.
The study claims that nothing else had any measurable effect - once you filtered them out, the effect from lead was exactly the same. ...which does bring up a couple of small doubts. There are a number of things that SHOULD cause the amount of lead in your system to have an increased or decreased effect, at least on a detectable level.
While it's reasonable that very small doses of lead will have a negative effect, I'd like to see some followup on this one. They say "it causes more deaths," but how much? Ten years off your lifespan? Ten days? Somewhere in between?
It's in The Lancet, after all, and they have a bad habit of occasionally publishing something that's just flat wrong. Vaccines, anyone?
No, not really.
When I'm searching for "drill press," I want drill presses in my search results, with suggestions as a separate list. I also want actual, relevant results, not "completely unrelated things that happen to have the word 'press' in them." And when I limit my search to "drill presses under $200," I want - and I know this is hard to understand - "drill presses under $200."
When I further say "price low to high," I want the same results, sorted in ascending order according to price, not "here's our four most-profitable items, only two of which are actually drill presses in the selected price range," with a link that goes to a PARTIAL list of all of their drill presses, with a dozen or so of the lower-priced ones dropped off the list.
The worst part? The behavior of their search function changed from day to day, even for the same items. That's just wrong.
Amazon is massive, and has been growing fast, and is in a lot of different markets, but they're starting to show some of the limits to sudden growth.
Their Amazon Prime service is getting less reliable. Last year, I could completely rely on two-day shipping for pretty much anything I ordered, but I'm seeing more and more missed or late orders. The search functions for products are, well, inaccurate in many cases. They're also (according to who you talk to) either losing money, or not making anywhere near enough profit margin.
While I enjoy getting things fast and relatively cheap, we're probably going to see some shrinkage of Amazon's power in the physical world - while Amazon Web Services will keep on expanding.
The good news is, they're not Google - who seems to have turned "don't be evil" into "evil is relative." I'd rather have a very powerful company that sells me stuff for low prices than a very powerful company that decides what I need to know, based off of random political beliefs of people I might not agree with.