Political conservatives != Christians. Your bias (and ignorance) is showing - so be careful about throwing stones in that house of mirrors you live in.
Believing that science has an agenda is to believe that thousands of independently-working and independently-paid researchers are all part of a vast conspiracy.
Well, they are... except for the 'conspiracy' part. Conspiracies are usually considered to be something hidden and stealthy, while the conspiracy to get funded and advance their careers is about as hidden and stealthy as an aircraft carrier in a wading pool.
How about quotes from the same era about Linux on the desktop? Or quotes from every year since about how this year will be the long heralded Year Of Linux on the desktop?
This one always confuses me. It isn't unique to games shops - go into any city centre and you will find like shops clustered together (here we have a bunch of banks all on the same street, the next street over there are a bunch of jewellers, etc.) I can only assume that it must work, otherwise they wouldn't do it, but I'm at a loss to understand why.
If a retailer of widgets is close enough to another retailer of widgets, then customers are more likely to come seeking widgets. Get enough retailers of widgets clustered close enough together, and any such retailer not in the cluster is now a competitive disadvantage because customers will go where they can more conveniently browse multiple locations and forgo visiting the outlier.
More generally, this is also why retailers tend to cluster into strip malls and shopping malls - the more businesses of any kind, the more customers that are walking past and have a chance to be lured into your premises.
But the problem with the chain in the TFA wasn't that there were too many games retailers clustered together - it's that too many branches of the *same* retailer were frequently clustered together. Unlike Gamestop, when they merged with EB, they don't appear to have closed redundant stores.
Unless they're particularly inefficient, or you're a particularly heavy drinker/eater... they're making a profit of about $200-250 if you just look at applying it to the food.
What part of "when you can't see the sun" and "the sky is uniformly bright" did you find so hard to understand? A sun tracker is not more efficient when there is no "brighter than average" spot in the sky to track.
If someone has enough room for these 3D structures they could just install a Sun tracking system that's even more efficient.
Under conditions where you can see the sun - that's true. But the point of TFA is that these 3D structures are more efficient *in situations where sun trackers aren't more efficient*.
Conditions exactly like those currently outside my window - where the sky is nearly uniformly bright but you cannot see the sun at all due to the clouds. Conditions that are fairly common here in the Pacific Northwest.
Well, no. The 7th grader built a single physical model and made rough measurements of it's performance at a single location across a limited span of time. The MIT team built a computer model that can analyze any given configuration and simulate it's output across a wide variety of locations and wide span of time - including variations in seasonal weather patterns.
I'm not saying that what the 7th grader did wasn't cool - but he's built a pinebox derby car, while MIT has built a fully solar powered 55mph family sedan. Apples-to-oranges doesn't even *begin* to describe the differences, not only of degree but of kind, between the projects.
PanAm used to cook four-course meals on their flights. What happened?
Pan Am (and every other airline) figured that the average American consumer chose their flights like they do pretty much everything else - strictly on price.
Reading TFA, this resupply mission is hugely expensive compared to what SpaceX will deliver (if nothing goeas wrong in their next launch)
ROTFLMAO. No shit it's more expensive - it's delivering more cargo. It can provide reboost to the ISS, which Dragon cannot. It can supply propellant and bulk gasses, which Dragon cannot. It can dock itself rather than relying on the Canadarm 2 to berth it...
You get what you pay for.
As I've said before in these discussions: It's not just about price, capabilities matter.* It doesn't matter how cheap something is if it cannot do the job. A subcompact may only cost a quarter of what a full size pickup does, but four subcompacts cannot replace a fulls size pickup - and only a fool would confuse the two in the first place.
* Seriously, it's annoying to have to keep repeating this. Is it really such a hard concept to grasp?
Do you honestly think you know more about this than Steven Fry?
You have failed to establish any reason to think otherwise. Just because themed pubs are "part of your culture" doesn't mean that Fry is in fact aware of the story of this particular one.
Themed pubs are part of our culture and part of American culture and it is wrong that they are being litigated out of existence.
At least here in America they aren't, and I've never heard of any such movement in the UK either... so, [[citation needed]].
They are not claiming to be official places
And here's where you go even further away from reality - because the place in question does seek to imply that it's official, by using material from the movie on it's website.
The sad part is that you actually believe your childish little rant has any bearing on the issue. You don't You're absolutely clueless.
That word "Hobbit" predates JRR is irrelevant. That words starting with "hob" have existed in even less relevant. (Words don't even exist in any human language to express how irrelevant the latter is.)
They aren't being sued because they used the word "Hobbit". They're being sued because they used the word Hobbit in association with The Lord of The Rings - Something JRR did claim exclusive right over by the very act of copyrighting his works. And by establishing a literary estate, he willingly and knowingly granted his descendents the right to enforce that claim.
They're also being sued because they used imagery from the movie on their website.
I think the problem with having fans write the shows is best summed up by a comment from a City Of Heroes developer on pleasing the players: "If the game spit out 20 dollar bills people would complain that they weren't sequentially numbered. If they were sequentially numbered people would complain that they weren't random enough."
Whats a more likely delivery vehicle for Iran... stick it in a truck and/or shipping crate with a suicide bomber holding a deadman switch, or the simpler task of merely defeating Isreal and the USA at the same time to maintain total air supremacy for the entire deployment phase of a ballistic weapons system and never lose that supremacy for an instant because you only have a handful of warheads?
In your warped and twisted world where a silo is 100% vulnerable and the only reason for having a weapon is to use it and they only have one... then sure, a truck or shipping crate is the only reasonable solution.
The problem is, that world bears no relation to reality.
Among other things you're ignorant of is this: nuclear weapons are political tools, and your proposed method(s) of delivery have roughly zero political value and in time of crisis much less than zero deterrent value. Iran, not being entirely an irrational actor, is not going to chose solutions with no political or deterrent value.
Investing in shares for time spans of months is of general benefit to the economy, directing investment dollars to those best able to use them. Millisecond trading is of no benefit to anyone except millisecond traders, and any money they make is at the expense of people trying to do something productive.
With the sole exception of IPO's the only difference between holding a stock for a millisecond or for months is how long you hold the stock. In both cases you pay the guy you bought the stock from, and get paid by the guy you sell the stock to. In neither case does the company in question see even a thin dime of your money.
However, I am not experienced with the share market, so constructive criticism is welcome.
The problem isn't that you're inexperienced. The problem is that, like so many people, you're ignorant of how the market works and you've totally bought into the propaganda about "investing" in the stock market and the "evils" of millisecond traders. All trading (other than IPO's) is for the benefit of the traders - whether it's Goldman, Sachs or your grandpa selling off that Coke stock he's had in his IRA since the 80's.
You shouldn't dream of arguing the issues with me either.
Your thoughts on the subject seem to revolve around people actually USING these capabilities, something which has,....never happened.
That's because everyone who has them, has plans to use them, even if they never intend to execute those plans. Without the (preferably demonstrated to some degree) ability to use them, they have zero political value.
That sounds a lot cheaper than the constant state of war we find ourselves in today in the Middle East to keep the oil supply flowing.
If we were going to war to keep the oil flowing - the Middle East would be third or fourth on the list.... after the sources which actually provide most of our foreign oil. (Canada, Central America, South America.)
I know that "evil oil shieks" has been a political meme in the US since the oil crisis in the 70's, but it hasn't represented reality in decades.
And to the other posters responding to him: You're woefully ignorant. Fuel isn't the problem. Automobiles, trucks, and planes aren't the problem. The problem is that petrochemistry underlies our entire economy - all manner of industrial feedstocks are derived from petroleum.
Having enough energy to synthesize the materials is only a tenth of the problem - the other 90% is finding a sufficient source of hydrogen and carbon to feed the synthesis process. And there's no source on the horizon for the tens of megatons a day the US alone will require.
Disclaimer: I've spent thirty odd years studying nuclear and strategic technologies and related issues.
"block a possible strike from Iranian nuclear tipped missiles" I'm going to take a wild guess that culturally they Might prefer using a Toyota pickup truck or a shipping container or a standard passenger jetliner as a delivery vehicle. In the US we've forgotten why we're fixated on missiles, its because the USSR couldn't realistically, say, drive a truck over here with a H-bomb, so it ends up being missile vs missile.
You don't seem to have noticed, but both North Korea and Iran have active IRBM/ICBM/space programs. Why do you think that might be? Hint: That what you think are "preferred" delivery methods are absolutely useless for a deterrent system and have huge drawbacks and almost no advantages for an offensive system has something to do with this.
I can't think of a less likely delivery vehicle than a ballistic missile
I can't think of a more *likely* delivery system than a nuclear missile. They're easy to keep under positive control. They're relatively easy to defend against anything other than other ballistic missiles. They require minimal communications infrastructure. They're easy to make and maintain ready to fire on short notice. Etc... etc... They're only significant drawback is that they're fixed.
Haven't you ever wondered why every current and past declared nuclear state (save South Africa) has pursued ballistic missile technology? (South Africa didn't because they built them with express purpose of threatening to nuke their (Soviet backed) neighbors in order to blackmail the West into assisting them.)
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously - that's all you have? A repeat of some deeply ignorant biased attack?
I don't know which of biased beliefs is more glaring... your stereotype of conservatives, or of liberals.
Political conservatives != Christians. Your bias (and ignorance) is showing - so be careful about throwing stones in that house of mirrors you live in.
Well, they are... except for the 'conspiracy' part. Conspiracies are usually considered to be something hidden and stealthy, while the conspiracy to get funded and advance their careers is about as hidden and stealthy as an aircraft carrier in a wading pool.
Nope. from my ancient steam powered single core Win XP machine.
How about quotes from the same era about Linux on the desktop? Or quotes from every year since about how this year will be the long heralded Year Of Linux on the desktop?
If a retailer of widgets is close enough to another retailer of widgets, then customers are more likely to come seeking widgets. Get enough retailers of widgets clustered close enough together, and any such retailer not in the cluster is now a competitive disadvantage because customers will go where they can more conveniently browse multiple locations and forgo visiting the outlier.
More generally, this is also why retailers tend to cluster into strip malls and shopping malls - the more businesses of any kind, the more customers that are walking past and have a chance to be lured into your premises.
But the problem with the chain in the TFA wasn't that there were too many games retailers clustered together - it's that too many branches of the *same* retailer were frequently clustered together. Unlike Gamestop, when they merged with EB, they don't appear to have closed redundant stores.
Sorry, but your (sic) is misplaced - as "borne" is a perfectly legitimate word and was properly used by the author.
Unless they're particularly inefficient, or you're a particularly heavy drinker/eater... they're making a profit of about $200-250 if you just look at applying it to the food.
What part of "when you can't see the sun" and "the sky is uniformly bright" did you find so hard to understand? A sun tracker is not more efficient when there is no "brighter than average" spot in the sky to track.
If you're forking over $300 - then the swag isn't free. It cost $300.
Under conditions where you can see the sun - that's true. But the point of TFA is that these 3D structures are more efficient *in situations where sun trackers aren't more efficient*.
Conditions exactly like those currently outside my window - where the sky is nearly uniformly bright but you cannot see the sun at all due to the clouds. Conditions that are fairly common here in the Pacific Northwest.
Well, no. The 7th grader built a single physical model and made rough measurements of it's performance at a single location across a limited span of time. The MIT team built a computer model that can analyze any given configuration and simulate it's output across a wide variety of locations and wide span of time - including variations in seasonal weather patterns.
I'm not saying that what the 7th grader did wasn't cool - but he's built a pinebox derby car, while MIT has built a fully solar powered 55mph family sedan. Apples-to-oranges doesn't even *begin* to describe the differences, not only of degree but of kind, between the projects.
Pan Am (and every other airline) figured that the average American consumer chose their flights like they do pretty much everything else - strictly on price.
ROTFLMAO. No shit it's more expensive - it's delivering more cargo. It can provide reboost to the ISS, which Dragon cannot. It can supply propellant and bulk gasses, which Dragon cannot. It can dock itself rather than relying on the Canadarm 2 to berth it...
You get what you pay for.
As I've said before in these discussions: It's not just about price, capabilities matter.* It doesn't matter how cheap something is if it cannot do the job. A subcompact may only cost a quarter of what a full size pickup does, but four subcompacts cannot replace a fulls size pickup - and only a fool would confuse the two in the first place.
* Seriously, it's annoying to have to keep repeating this. Is it really such a hard concept to grasp?
You have failed to establish any reason to think otherwise. Just because themed pubs are "part of your culture" doesn't mean that Fry is in fact aware of the story of this particular one.
At least here in America they aren't, and I've never heard of any such movement in the UK either... so, [[citation needed]].
And here's where you go even further away from reality - because the place in question does seek to imply that it's official, by using material from the movie on it's website.
The sad part is that you actually believe your childish little rant has any bearing on the issue. You don't You're absolutely clueless.
That word "Hobbit" predates JRR is irrelevant. That words starting with "hob" have existed in even less relevant. (Words don't even exist in any human language to express how irrelevant the latter is.)
They aren't being sued because they used the word "Hobbit". They're being sued because they used the word Hobbit in association with The Lord of The Rings - Something JRR did claim exclusive right over by the very act of copyrighting his works. And by establishing a literary estate, he willingly and knowingly granted his descendents the right to enforce that claim.
They're also being sued because they used imagery from the movie on their website.
I think the problem with having fans write the shows is best summed up by a comment from a City Of Heroes developer on pleasing the players: "If the game spit out 20 dollar bills people would complain that they weren't sequentially numbered. If they were sequentially numbered people would complain that they weren't random enough."
This... When even the wetsiders are complaining about the cold and the rain, you *know* it's bad.
In your warped and twisted world where a silo is 100% vulnerable and the only reason for having a weapon is to use it and they only have one... then sure, a truck or shipping crate is the only reasonable solution.
The problem is, that world bears no relation to reality.
Among other things you're ignorant of is this: nuclear weapons are political tools, and your proposed method(s) of delivery have roughly zero political value and in time of crisis much less than zero deterrent value. Iran, not being entirely an irrational actor, is not going to chose solutions with no political or deterrent value.
With the sole exception of IPO's the only difference between holding a stock for a millisecond or for months is how long you hold the stock. In both cases you pay the guy you bought the stock from, and get paid by the guy you sell the stock to. In neither case does the company in question see even a thin dime of your money.
The problem isn't that you're inexperienced. The problem is that, like so many people, you're ignorant of how the market works and you've totally bought into the propaganda about "investing" in the stock market and the "evils" of millisecond traders. All trading (other than IPO's) is for the benefit of the traders - whether it's Goldman, Sachs or your grandpa selling off that Coke stock he's had in his IRA since the 80's.
You shouldn't dream of arguing the issues with me either.
That's because everyone who has them, has plans to use them, even if they never intend to execute those plans. Without the (preferably demonstrated to some degree) ability to use them, they have zero political value.
If we were going to war to keep the oil flowing - the Middle East would be third or fourth on the list.... after the sources which actually provide most of our foreign oil. (Canada, Central America, South America.)
I know that "evil oil shieks" has been a political meme in the US since the oil crisis in the 70's, but it hasn't represented reality in decades.
And to the other posters responding to him: You're woefully ignorant. Fuel isn't the problem. Automobiles, trucks, and planes aren't the problem. The problem is that petrochemistry underlies our entire economy - all manner of industrial feedstocks are derived from petroleum.
Having enough energy to synthesize the materials is only a tenth of the problem - the other 90% is finding a sufficient source of hydrogen and carbon to feed the synthesis process. And there's no source on the horizon for the tens of megatons a day the US alone will require.
Disclaimer: I've spent thirty odd years studying nuclear and strategic technologies and related issues.
You don't seem to have noticed, but both North Korea and Iran have active IRBM/ICBM/space programs. Why do you think that might be? Hint: That what you think are "preferred" delivery methods are absolutely useless for a deterrent system and have huge drawbacks and almost no advantages for an offensive system has something to do with this.
I can't think of a more *likely* delivery system than a nuclear missile. They're easy to keep under positive control. They're relatively easy to defend against anything other than other ballistic missiles. They require minimal communications infrastructure. They're easy to make and maintain ready to fire on short notice. Etc... etc... They're only significant drawback is that they're fixed.
Haven't you ever wondered why every current and past declared nuclear state (save South Africa) has pursued ballistic missile technology? (South Africa didn't because they built them with express purpose of threatening to nuke their (Soviet backed) neighbors in order to blackmail the West into assisting them.)
That's also why fighters are equipped with machine guns... :)