I hate being only able to see a few dozen stars at night, and I'm live in a fairly rural area, and out "city" isn't all that big.
Travel a couple hours any direction, and it gets better, enough that it literally dropped my wife's jaw (she'd never seen it before), but it's still not like I used to get see in the middle of the Nevada desert or from the top of a ridge in the Northern Sierras at night.
no the point of a laser is that the actual light waves are coherent. the single wavelength is more of a byproduct of the process, albeit a very useful one.
The statement "Businesses have not grown large enough to co-opt government, not by a long shot." is patently, provably, and ridiculously false in these United States of America.
It's saying Up is Down, or Black is White. To say it with a straight face is a master feat of mummery.
To put is simply: it is more than mere BS. it is the purest essence of BS, having been distilled and refined several times to increase its potency to nearly 200 proof.
To say otherwise is a blatant denial of reality, which sadly is the typical gist of your comments. And pointing it out is not trolling or flamebait.
Daily Caller....They never saw a anti-environment position/myth they didn't like. Linking to the Daily Caller for anything science/environmental is like referring Trump as an example of modesty.
Bee hive numbers are really nothing more than an indicator of demand for bees. If anything, more bee hives might be indicative of a problem, because more domestic bees are needed to pollinate crops when there aren't enough wild pollinators. Wild bee numbers are way down over the last few years
The REAL issue is how populations of non-cultivated bees are doing. Bumblebees and all the other sorts of bees that we don't use to commercially produce honey or pollinate farms are also important, even if no human is directly making a dollar from the bees' work.
That there is the real issue alright. And it actually supports your statement that the rebound here is most likely due to the efforts of keepers to keep hives afloat.
Wild bees, bumble bees, etc, even just pollinators in general (including non-bees) are all crashing too, right along side the honeybees kept by humans. They talk about how the honey bees matter because they pollinate a very significant portion of our agriculture. The flip side is that the wild pollinators do the rest of the job (as well as pollinating nature in general, not just human crops), and with them crashing too, it becomes even more important to find the cause and a solution.
Bingo. This is just astroturfing for a manufacturer of pesticides.
And lets not forget that it wasn't just honeybees that were dying off. Bees not raised by humans (wild bees, non-social bees, bumblebees, etc) were and are dying off too. Still.
Not sure monoculture is the problem since honeybees weren't the only bees collapsing. Wild bees, bumble bees, and non-social bees have also been collapsing.
1.The term is a racial canard. Of course, it could merely be descriptive, an adjective for a certain kind of crime, like “same-sex domestic-partner violence.” But it’s not. Same-sex domestic-partner violence is distinguished from opposite-sex domestic-partner violence. But “black-on-black crime” has no racial equivalent: nobody talks about white-on-white crime (see 2) or Asian-on-Asian crime. It’s a construct assigned solely to black people, and it interprets their transgression through a purely racial lens. It ranks alongside “the down-low,” a phrase used to refer to black gay men who lead straight lives, only to cheat on their wives with other men. When white men do it, it’s called “Brokeback Mountain”; when black men do it, it gets a special name. The phrase “black-on-black crime” makes sense only if you understand black people’s propensity to commit crimes against people of their own race as inherently different from the way other racial groups commit crimes.
2.In this regard, black criminals are not particularly different. America is very segregated, and its criminality conforms to that fact. So the victims of most crimes are the same race as those who commit them. Eighty-four percent of white people who are killed every year are killed by white people. White people who buy illegal drugs are most likely to buy them from white people. Far from being extraordinary, the fact that black criminals are most likely to commit crimes against black people makes them just like everybody else. A more honest term than “black-on-black crime” would be, simply, “crime.”
3.It is not a taboo. Anyone who seriously thinks that black people are not talking about black people killing other black people just doesn’t know any black people. Black people talk about it a lot. They have a lot to talk about. But while black-on-black crime is a nonsense term, black crime is a serious issue. Black people may not be much more likely to kill members of their own racial group than whites, but they are still more likely to kill and be killed. It’s not as though the black community hasn’t noticed that. Most cities have several black-led organizations confronting this very thing. Nor do black people grieve according to some code of silence. Go to any inner-city church, youth club, park, concert, barbershop, beauty salon or high school basketball game and listen. Every now and then, like last year after Chicago high school student Hadiya Pendleton was shot, they even get a national platform to talk about it. And when they do, they seize it.
4.The police are a special category. That’s the point. Black people are not, by dint of their melanin content, instructed to protect and serve the public; the police, by dint of their employment, are. Black people do not have a monopoly on violence; the police do. So when the people entrusted with upholding the law kill someone, that raises very different issues than if a kid from down the block shoots somebody. When the people who are supposed to protect everybody show an undeniable propensity to kill one group of people more than others (black men aged 15 to 19 are twenty-one times more likely to be shot by police than their white counterparts), that inevitably raises the question of discrimination. Our taxes don’t pay to support black criminals in their pursuit of black victims; they are currently going to support police in the shooting of black people.
5.The police are not an elevated category. The law still applies to them. When black people kill other black peop
Depends on the speech, the person, and in what role their speech originates from.
For ex: -money in politics: not free speech -private citizen being racist: free speech -government official being racist in his official capacity: not free speech
If my instruments have Serial it's high tech. Most of them use IEEE-488, and I'm controlling them with a HP-226. That's this badboy right here: http://www.hpmuseum.net/upload...
QA of a structural part -DOES- involve testing it to failure. A batch is made and a random representative sample of the batch is tested to failure. That tells you then whether the batch as a whole may have had issues in the manufacturing process, and warrants further investigation.
This is done because they aren't designed to meet a specific use load, but rather to meet a specific failure load. A beam, a strut, or any other structural member is designed and then chosen for its task according to its failure or yield strength. Actual usage is then determined as a portion of that ultimate strength in order to provide a known Factor of Safety.
If the sample passes, then most likely the whole batch will too, although there is a slim chance a few pieces may not, but that chance is reduced by having consistent and quality manufacturing method/process. I could make 100 pieces, and test 95 of them to achieve that high confidence...but that's not very efficient. The better the process, the smaller the sample can be and still represent the whole batch.
Here we are once again observing the troll in his natural habitat. Note how he rejects any form of reality even after being repeatedly informed just what and how and why the adjustments are made. This marks the 786th straight day of this behavior. What curious benefits arise from this level of self delusion biologists have yet to confirm, but apparently there must be some as the repeated ignorance is quite astounding.
You do realize that it is the government that created, enabled, and permits the situation as is, right?
Delicious cold, you almost manage to describe a world where corporate interests stand silently on the sidelines while those wacky government types run roughshod over the public
Slashdot Mirror
I hate being only able to see a few dozen stars at night, and I'm live in a fairly rural area, and out "city" isn't all that big.
Travel a couple hours any direction, and it gets better, enough that it literally dropped my wife's jaw (she'd never seen it before), but it's still not like I used to get see in the middle of the Nevada desert or from the top of a ridge in the Northern Sierras at night.
no the point of a laser is that the actual light waves are coherent.
the single wavelength is more of a byproduct of the process, albeit a very useful one.
The statement "Businesses have not grown large enough to co-opt government, not by a long shot." is patently, provably, and ridiculously false in these United States of America.
It's saying Up is Down, or Black is White.
To say it with a straight face is a master feat of mummery.
To put is simply: it is more than mere BS. it is the purest essence of BS, having been distilled and refined several times to increase its potency to nearly 200 proof.
To say otherwise is a blatant denial of reality, which sadly is the typical gist of your comments.
And pointing it out is not trolling or flamebait.
any non zero probability is too much for comfort
Obviously you haven't been paying attention to the real world.
Removing money and "gifts" from the equation would also do a lot.
Yes, please continue to oversimplify, overstate, and not read papers in their entirety.
It makes this task easier.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Daily Caller....They never saw a anti-environment position/myth they didn't like.
Linking to the Daily Caller for anything science/environmental is like referring Trump as an example of modesty.
Bee hive numbers are really nothing more than an indicator of demand for bees. If anything, more bee hives might be indicative of a problem, because more domestic bees are needed to pollinate crops when there aren't enough wild pollinators. Wild bee numbers are way down over the last few years
Hit the nail on the head.
The REAL issue is how populations of non-cultivated bees are doing. Bumblebees and all the other sorts of bees that we don't use to commercially produce honey or pollinate farms are also important, even if no human is directly making a dollar from the bees' work.
That there is the real issue alright. And it actually supports your statement that the rebound here is most likely due to the efforts of keepers to keep hives afloat.
Wild bees, bumble bees, etc, even just pollinators in general (including non-bees) are all crashing too, right along side the honeybees kept by humans. They talk about how the honey bees matter because they pollinate a very significant portion of our agriculture. The flip side is that the wild pollinators do the rest of the job (as well as pollinating nature in general, not just human crops), and with them crashing too, it becomes even more important to find the cause and a solution.
And shill number 3 shows up to collect his 2 cents.
Bingo.
This is just astroturfing for a manufacturer of pesticides.
And lets not forget that it wasn't just honeybees that were dying off.
Bees not raised by humans (wild bees, non-social bees, bumblebees, etc) were and are dying off too. Still.
Not sure monoculture is the problem since honeybees weren't the only bees collapsing.
Wild bees, bumble bees, and non-social bees have also been collapsing.
who modded this false racist trash up?
1- we're supposed to believe that all 82 people were cases of "black on black" crime?
2- the "black on black crime" canard needs to go away. a pretty good summation ( http://www.thenation.com/artic... ) :
1.The term is a racial canard. Of course, it could merely be descriptive, an adjective for a certain kind of crime, like “same-sex domestic-partner violence.” But it’s not. Same-sex domestic-partner violence is distinguished from opposite-sex domestic-partner violence. But “black-on-black crime” has no racial equivalent: nobody talks about white-on-white crime (see 2) or Asian-on-Asian crime. It’s a construct assigned solely to black people, and it interprets their transgression through a purely racial lens. It ranks alongside “the down-low,” a phrase used to refer to black gay men who lead straight lives, only to cheat on their wives with other men. When white men do it, it’s called “Brokeback Mountain”; when black men do it, it gets a special name. The phrase “black-on-black crime” makes sense only if you understand black people’s propensity to commit crimes against people of their own race as inherently different from the way other racial groups commit crimes.
2.In this regard, black criminals are not particularly different. America is very segregated, and its criminality conforms to that fact. So the victims of most crimes are the same race as those who commit them. Eighty-four percent of white people who are killed every year are killed by white people. White people who buy illegal drugs are most likely to buy them from white people. Far from being extraordinary, the fact that black criminals are most likely to commit crimes against black people makes them just like everybody else. A more honest term than “black-on-black crime” would be, simply, “crime.”
3.It is not a taboo. Anyone who seriously thinks that black people are not talking about black people killing other black people just doesn’t know any black people. Black people talk about it a lot. They have a lot to talk about. But while black-on-black crime is a nonsense term, black crime is a serious issue. Black people may not be much more likely to kill members of their own racial group than whites, but they are still more likely to kill and be killed. It’s not as though the black community hasn’t noticed that. Most cities have several black-led organizations confronting this very thing. Nor do black people grieve according to some code of silence. Go to any inner-city church, youth club, park, concert, barbershop, beauty salon or high school basketball game and listen. Every now and then, like last year after Chicago high school student Hadiya Pendleton was shot, they even get a national platform to talk about it. And when they do, they seize it.
4.The police are a special category. That’s the point. Black people are not, by dint of their melanin content, instructed to protect and serve the public; the police, by dint of their employment, are. Black people do not have a monopoly on violence; the police do. So when the people entrusted with upholding the law kill someone, that raises very different issues than if a kid from down the block shoots somebody. When the people who are supposed to protect everybody show an undeniable propensity to kill one group of people more than others (black men aged 15 to 19 are twenty-one times more likely to be shot by police than their white counterparts), that inevitably raises the question of discrimination. Our taxes don’t pay to support black criminals in their pursuit of black victims; they are currently going to support police in the shooting of black people.
5.The police are not an elevated category. The law still applies to them. When black people kill other black peop
It's called institutional or systemic racism, and it's very much alive in the real estate market.
Depends on the speech, the person, and in what role their speech originates from.
For ex:
-money in politics: not free speech
-private citizen being racist: free speech
-government official being racist in his official capacity: not free speech
i never really looked into it. always thought 232 was the newer.
Serial?
Old?
Bah!
If my instruments have Serial it's high tech. Most of them use IEEE-488, and I'm controlling them with a HP-226.
That's this badboy right here: http://www.hpmuseum.net/upload...
A taxi company screaming "I am not a taxi company" is not a reason to change the laws.
I don't think that is right. We don't build aerospace parts with margin. We shoot for zero margin.
Absolutely talking out of your ass.
QA of a structural part -DOES- involve testing it to failure.
A batch is made and a random representative sample of the batch is tested to failure.
That tells you then whether the batch as a whole may have had issues in the manufacturing process, and warrants further investigation.
This is done because they aren't designed to meet a specific use load, but rather to meet a specific failure load.
A beam, a strut, or any other structural member is designed and then chosen for its task according to its failure or yield strength.
Actual usage is then determined as a portion of that ultimate strength in order to provide a known Factor of Safety.
If the sample passes, then most likely the whole batch will too, although there is a slim chance a few pieces may not, but that chance is reduced by having consistent and quality manufacturing method/process. I could make 100 pieces, and test 95 of them to achieve that high confidence...but that's not very efficient. The better the process, the smaller the sample can be and still represent the whole batch.
Here we are once again observing the troll in his natural habitat. Note how he rejects any form of reality even after being repeatedly informed just what and how and why the adjustments are made. This marks the 786th straight day of this behavior. What curious benefits arise from this level of self delusion biologists have yet to confirm, but apparently there must be some as the repeated ignorance is quite astounding.
I have a feeling that if they had reported the translation from Luther the quotations would have been quite a bit more forceful.
You do realize that it is the government that created, enabled, and permits the situation as is, right?
Delicious cold, you almost manage to describe a world where corporate interests stand silently on the sidelines while those wacky government types run roughshod over the public
It's what his kind honestly believe.