No one has good statistics, for example, on crashes per mile ridden.
In the Netherlands the chance of getting seriously injured or dying in a traffic accident is 4.7 times larger on a bike than in a car (per kilometer). The Netherlands probably has the safest bicycle infrastructure in existence so if we can't do better the situation is clear: riding a bike is much more dangerous than using a car. Note that cycling includes mountain biking and other sports accidents while motor sport accidents are not counted in the car fatalities.
Another thing to consider is that many bicycle related fatalities are related to carelessness of the bicyclist while in cars this is less so. As a bicyclist you probably have more control over on your own fate than you do in your car, where technical problems and the simple fact that you may be a passenger are also a factor. When acting carefully, bicycling is probably much safer than the numbers indicate.
However, that only takes accidents into account. While there are a lot of them, we're still talking about a only few accidents per billion kilometers driven while most people don't get much farther than about 100000 kilometers in a lifetime. So obviously by far most bicyclists never get involved in a serious accident at all. Even though driving a bike is 4.7 times more dangerous than driving a car, the risk is still _extremely_ small.
On average, bicycle accidents are responsible for a shortening of the life expectancy in the Netherlands by about a WEEK while regularly riding a bicycle increases life expectancy by several MONTHS! So while the chance of dying in a bicycle accident is much larger than the chance of dying in a car accident, the certainty of dying when never riding a bike is much larger than when not doing so;-)
Also interesting to note is that additional exposure to polluted air while riding a bike lowers life expectancy by up to a few WEEKS. Obviously that's much more than the traffic accidents.
But that's the Netherlands. Bicycling may very well be MUCH more dangerous in countries that aren't equipped with a ridiculous amount of bicycle lanes. If the chance of a lethal bicycle accident is 10 times or so higher in the USA, the car is probably the better choice. Given the lack of data and given my experiences bicycling in other countries I really wouldn't advice riding a bicycle in actual traffic anywhere but in Netherlands...
After the stack of somewhat dead inkjetprinters reached the ceiling of my basement, I decided to get the printer my mom had been using for 5 years without a problem (apart from the plug falling out once:P). That was a Samsung. I've been using it for 2 years and it's awesome. Would highly recommend it.
Also got myself an A3 Konica-Minolta color laser printer but that may be a bit pricey for your needs. Would also highly recommend this.
Whatever you do, don't get an inkjet. Probably any laserprinter with proper driver support (linux support!) and a network connection is just fine.
I've been very interested in this subject for quite some time and have done some number crunching on employment rates in different sectors (as determined by our national statistics agency). Practically of them are in decline except for these five: - Catering - IT - Security - Medical and other care - Sport and recreation
(and to a certain extent waste management/recycling)
Jobs in these sectors have been growing steadily for the past 40 years. I think we can expect that trend to continue; these are exactly the jobs that are not easily automated. The others will slowly be taken over by the machines. This in itself is not a problem, though. The problem lies not in automation, humans will find new things to do. There is a problem though, and that's that as humans are replaced by machines, the money earned by these machines will be "trapped" within businesses. Without employees, there's no salary to pay and there will be no mechanism to keep the money going around. Economy will slow down, possibly come to a standstill. And this may very well be exactly what we've been experiencing the past few years (albeit partly caused by outsourcing to China instead of automation - for now).
There are several "solutions". The obvious one would be huge taxes and welfare. However, as stuff becomes automated really quickly, nearly everything businesses currently do will become commodity rather quickly. On the one hand this means everybody can do them, on the other hand it means nobody will be able to excel in them nor will any new business be able to enter such markets. Due to this, probably not too many businesses will remain. And when that happens, we will end up in some kind of planned economy. If we smart and/or lucky, that is; the alternative would probably be some kind of dystopian oligarchy of the owners of the machines.
Marshall Brain wrote quite a nice story about exactly this situation, its problems and the possible solutions. For a story it's rather bad, but it provides so many insights into the intricacies of this problem that it's definitely worth a read.
I cannot find any data on the Pacific ocean near Australia, but in many places oceans are getting slightly cooler. This has nothing to do with melt water, though; there's much too little of that to have a measurable influence, especially at your latitude. Instead, it is most probably due to changing currents.
However, a very likely alternative cause for you guys feeling colder would be that you're getting older; as people get older, they feel colder quicker.
Due to slowness and creating other "less ideal" conditions, the W3C is quickly becoming an irrelevant marginalized nothing. They've their control over the HTML5 spec long ago; all browser manufacturers follow the HTML5 spec that's maintained by WHATWG (which, coincidentally, was formed by those browser manufacturers out of discontent with the way W3C managed it. Apparently they've learned nothing from that since this DRM stuff will marginalize them even further. Nowadays, W3C approving stuff has just about nothing to do with what browsers will support or what the Internet will look like in the future.
That's just not true. You can get perfectly fine point-and-shoot cameras with all the advantages you ascribe to DSLR cameras. In fact, you can nowadays even get point-and-shoot cameras that will show you a clearer picture through the electronic viewfinder in the dark than you could ever get through a DSLR viewfinder with your own eyes.
Many of the compact cameras listed here will outdo many cheap DSLRs.
And for lens changing needs there's a multitude of system cameras with similar features and interchangable lenses.
Nevertheless, I prefer my DSLR over my point-and-shoots too, but that does not have that much to do with the mirror and the analog viewfinder. And you're damn right DSLRs are not only for professionals. However, compact cameras are not only for amateurs either.
Also, in good lighting conditions those "pinhead" sized sensors (they're a bit larger than that) in mobile phones are just fine and when combined with a good lens many of them deliver the equivalent of the megapixels they're marketed to deliver. In good lighting conditions, that is..:) And due to the extremely long depth of field these tiny things offer, they're absolutely superb when it comes to "macro" photography and other types of photography that require a rather long depth of field. Proper (expensive:)) phone cameras will at F2 get the equivalent depth of view of your DSLR at F8, enabling you to take great sharp pictures in situations where your DSLR will require a tripod or (expensive) image stabilization.
The same goes for compact cameras with medium sized sensors, by the way. There really are quite advantages to small sensors and it is exactly for those reasons that professional photographers will every now and then choose to use a compact camera for specific jobs.
I'm dutch, yes. And maybe that does indeed change things a little; my kids don't understand english. The foul language in GTA does not reach them. I think the language would be one of the bigger problems. The violence and sex, not so much.
That's because the ratings err ridiculously on the safe side. GTA V is probably fine for any kid older than 12 except if you're a religious zealot that's trying to pass you unhealthy sexphobia on to your kids.
GTA probably won't harm much younger kids either; I have carefully tried what the effect of GTA SA was when my 4 y.o. kid watched me playing. He does not identify with the character nor does he relate the more violent parts to the real world; his reaction is more like that on a nature video about lions getting some beef. Nevertheless, I'm playing safe; he won't be allowed to play GTA for many years to come.
Anyway - the overly obnoxiously safe ratings only result in the general population ignoring them entirely since they're way out of sync with reality.
This is totally awesome. Gnome has been taunting me for years, continuously demolishing perfectly fine functionality I use daily, but at the same time just not taking it far enough for me to permanently switch. Not anymore though; this will definitely make me switch to some other desktop environment. Awesome. I'm happy for this loss:-)
as I now have to question every process to publish a paper in every country
Since when does papers being published have any value? I suggest not trusting reviews based solely on them being done by popular entities such as "scientific" journals. Instead, get advice from experts and think for yourself. See what experts think, not what a commercial entity that earns money by publishing stuff thinks.
There should not be a place "scientific" journals in modern science. They have no added value whatsoever and in fact harm free sharing of knowledge and information. It's not 1956 anymore - all scientific papers could easily be made available in a free open standardized way. The same goes for reviews. The scientific world failing to get this right is utterly sad.
Even if this scientific journal would have refused to publish this specific hoax, why would we need them? What's added value do they provide?
This guy is the CEO. He could just as well have Lenovo give this bonus directly to its employees, which it will probably (have to) do anyway. Instead he's trying to make himself look good. Might be worth the trouble; the (apparently) kinder the CEO, the more loyal the employees. But this is not an act of charity; it's just a normal bonus with a well thought-out psychological plan behind it.
Ok, you're right. But Antarctica is _cold_ so you could just use snow cannons. They use about 50 liters per minute so you'd only need about 18 million of them. Those all need 10-20 kilowatt of electricity so that would be an additional 250000 megawatt.
I was just last night thinking about ideas to counter sea level rise. I came up with a rather unfeasible plan that I want to share with you since it illustrates the scale of the problem rather nicely.
My plan was to pump all additional water onto the South Pole. In order to counter the projected sea level rise for the 21st century, we'd have to pump up the equivalent of about 10-30 times the flow rate of the Mississippi river (something like 15000 cubic meters per second). The south pole has an elevation of 3000 meter.
I really like the idea of drilling additional holes in nuclear storage facilities!
I guess it shouldn't be too difficult to detect water level changes from the outside of the container. The pulse response of the container will change with the water level. If I can do it by tapping on a bottle with a coin or something like that, a sensor could easily measure this as well.
Good to see your outrageously rude (fuck, stupid, bullshit, propaganda, fuck) reply scoring +4 while my facts-based post somehow now is a troll.
Windturbine changing weather patterns is well-studied and well-known. That's just a fact (which apparently you cannot deal with). Now we don't really make use of wind power on that large a scale so this effect is rather small, but it is also very real. Note the effect works both ways; while my image shows increased cloud cover, cooling the earth, Texas is apparently heated by wind turbines.
Similarly, getting cold water from the deep ocean will have effects as well, like heating up the ocean must more efficiently than global warming can achieve by itself. And when done on a large scale, these effects may be rather large as well. We'd better think about them beforehand unlike we did with the whole fossil fuel debacle.
Also, obviously the effects of wind turbines as well as deep ocean heating are - for now - extremely small compared to the impact of burning fossil fuel. So they will only work as a pro-oil/coal argument to people that somehow lack logical reasoning skills. Like you apparently.
We're not going to solve the whole anthropocentric climate-change problem if we are not prepared to think about how our actions influence nature and climate. I can understand you'd rather not do that since it apparently makes your view of the world more complex than you can handle. I personally'd rather follow a more scientific approach, which requires taking such effects into account.
I was going to type a lot of text regarding us mere humans not having a clue about the environmental impact of doing this at the large scale, but this image will explain rather well that our apparently mundane energy harvesting stations sometimes have a larger environmental effect on their environment than you might expect.
I used to experience something similar, but basically this boils down to either your tent getting way too hot way too early, simply having nothing to do at night and therefore going to bed early or actually using your body during the day (as opposed to sitting in a chair all day), causing it to actually be tired for a change.
I have recently acquired a new obsession - night photography. Now camping fucks up my circadian clock even more:)
Inside the slingatron is a spiral tube, or a series of connected spiral tubes, depending on the design, that gyrates on a series of flywheels spread along its length.
That sounds a lot like a spiral version of the Interwebs! It's only a matter of time before Mr. Ted Stevens sues for infringement!
Slashdot Mirror
No one has good statistics, for example, on crashes per mile ridden.
In the Netherlands the chance of getting seriously injured or dying in a traffic accident is 4.7 times larger on a bike than in a car (per kilometer). The Netherlands probably has the safest bicycle infrastructure in existence so if we can't do better the situation is clear: riding a bike is much more dangerous than using a car. Note that cycling includes mountain biking and other sports accidents while motor sport accidents are not counted in the car fatalities.
Another thing to consider is that many bicycle related fatalities are related to carelessness of the bicyclist while in cars this is less so. As a bicyclist you probably have more control over on your own fate than you do in your car, where technical problems and the simple fact that you may be a passenger are also a factor. When acting carefully, bicycling is probably much safer than the numbers indicate.
However, that only takes accidents into account. While there are a lot of them, we're still talking about a only few accidents per billion kilometers driven while most people don't get much farther than about 100000 kilometers in a lifetime. So obviously by far most bicyclists never get involved in a serious accident at all. Even though driving a bike is 4.7 times more dangerous than driving a car, the risk is still _extremely_ small.
On average, bicycle accidents are responsible for a shortening of the life expectancy in the Netherlands by about a WEEK while regularly riding a bicycle increases life expectancy by several MONTHS! So while the chance of dying in a bicycle accident is much larger than the chance of dying in a car accident, the certainty of dying when never riding a bike is much larger than when not doing so;-)
Also interesting to note is that additional exposure to polluted air while riding a bike lowers life expectancy by up to a few WEEKS. Obviously that's much more than the traffic accidents.
But that's the Netherlands. Bicycling may very well be MUCH more dangerous in countries that aren't equipped with a ridiculous amount of bicycle lanes. If the chance of a lethal bicycle accident is 10 times or so higher in the USA, the car is probably the better choice. Given the lack of data and given my experiences bicycling in other countries I really wouldn't advice riding a bicycle in actual traffic anywhere but in Netherlands...
Sources (in dutch):
- Article on the 4.7-number: http://www.swov.nl/rapport/D-2012-05.pdfâZ
- Health benefits of cycling: http://www.groen7.nl/gezondheidsvoordelen-fietsen-veel-groter-dan-risicos/
- Accidents/kilometer: http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/NL/Factsheet_Risico.pdf
- More numbers: http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4492/Nederland/article/detail/3323533/2012/09/28/Ergernis-en-ongelukken-op-drukkere-fietspaden.dhtml
After the stack of somewhat dead inkjetprinters reached the ceiling of my basement, I decided to get the printer my mom had been using for 5 years without a problem (apart from the plug falling out once:P). That was a Samsung. I've been using it for 2 years and it's awesome. Would highly recommend it.
Also got myself an A3 Konica-Minolta color laser printer but that may be a bit pricey for your needs. Would also highly recommend this.
Whatever you do, don't get an inkjet. Probably any laserprinter with proper driver support (linux support!) and a network connection is just fine.
I've been very interested in this subject for quite some time and have done some number crunching on employment rates in different sectors (as determined by our national statistics agency). Practically of them are in decline except for these five:
- Catering
- IT
- Security
- Medical and other care
- Sport and recreation
(and to a certain extent waste management/recycling)
Jobs in these sectors have been growing steadily for the past 40 years. I think we can expect that trend to continue; these are exactly the jobs that are not easily automated. The others will slowly be taken over by the machines. This in itself is not a problem, though. The problem lies not in automation, humans will find new things to do. There is a problem though, and that's that as humans are replaced by machines, the money earned by these machines will be "trapped" within businesses. Without employees, there's no salary to pay and there will be no mechanism to keep the money going around. Economy will slow down, possibly come to a standstill. And this may very well be exactly what we've been experiencing the past few years (albeit partly caused by outsourcing to China instead of automation - for now).
There are several "solutions". The obvious one would be huge taxes and welfare. However, as stuff becomes automated really quickly, nearly everything businesses currently do will become commodity rather quickly. On the one hand this means everybody can do them, on the other hand it means nobody will be able to excel in them nor will any new business be able to enter such markets. Due to this, probably not too many businesses will remain. And when that happens, we will end up in some kind of planned economy. If we smart and/or lucky, that is; the alternative would probably be some kind of dystopian oligarchy of the owners of the machines.
Marshall Brain wrote quite a nice story about exactly this situation, its problems and the possible solutions. For a story it's rather bad, but it provides so many insights into the intricacies of this problem that it's definitely worth a read.
http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
I cannot find any data on the Pacific ocean near Australia, but in many places oceans are getting slightly cooler. This has nothing to do with melt water, though; there's much too little of that to have a measurable influence, especially at your latitude. Instead, it is most probably due to changing currents.
However, a very likely alternative cause for you guys feeling colder would be that you're getting older; as people get older, they feel colder quicker.
Due to slowness and creating other "less ideal" conditions, the W3C is quickly becoming an irrelevant marginalized nothing. They've their control over the HTML5 spec long ago; all browser manufacturers follow the HTML5 spec that's maintained by WHATWG (which, coincidentally, was formed by those browser manufacturers out of discontent with the way W3C managed it. Apparently they've learned nothing from that since this DRM stuff will marginalize them even further. Nowadays, W3C approving stuff has just about nothing to do with what browsers will support or what the Internet will look like in the future.
Fine. Here a's discussion about similar events in 2005.
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=167378
I repeat: this is not new. It's just that the older news - including the article referenced in my link above - has disappeared from the interwebs.
This is not a "new threat"; this is extremely common. A quick google comes up with at least 5 similar incidents in 2011 and 2012.
http://www.ibtimes.com/jellyfish-invade-four-nuclear-reactors-japan-israel-scotland-photos-707777
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/27/11432974-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant-in-california-knocked-offline-by-jellyfish-like-creature-called-salp?lite
That's just not true. You can get perfectly fine point-and-shoot cameras with all the advantages you ascribe to DSLR cameras. In fact, you can nowadays even get point-and-shoot cameras that will show you a clearer picture through the electronic viewfinder in the dark than you could ever get through a DSLR viewfinder with your own eyes.
Many of the compact cameras listed here will outdo many cheap DSLRs.
http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/best-compact-camera-2013-34-reviewed-963985
And for lens changing needs there's a multitude of system cameras with similar features and interchangable lenses.
Nevertheless, I prefer my DSLR over my point-and-shoots too, but that does not have that much to do with the mirror and the analog viewfinder. And you're damn right DSLRs are not only for professionals. However, compact cameras are not only for amateurs either.
Also, in good lighting conditions those "pinhead" sized sensors (they're a bit larger than that) in mobile phones are just fine and when combined with a good lens many of them deliver the equivalent of the megapixels they're marketed to deliver. In good lighting conditions, that is..:) And due to the extremely long depth of field these tiny things offer, they're absolutely superb when it comes to "macro" photography and other types of photography that require a rather long depth of field. Proper (expensive:)) phone cameras will at F2 get the equivalent depth of view of your DSLR at F8, enabling you to take great sharp pictures in situations where your DSLR will require a tripod or (expensive) image stabilization.
The same goes for compact cameras with medium sized sensors, by the way. There really are quite advantages to small sensors and it is exactly for those reasons that professional photographers will every now and then choose to use a compact camera for specific jobs.
I'm dutch, yes. And maybe that does indeed change things a little; my kids don't understand english. The foul language in GTA does not reach them. I think the language would be one of the bigger problems. The violence and sex, not so much.
That's because the ratings err ridiculously on the safe side. GTA V is probably fine for any kid older than 12 except if you're a religious zealot that's trying to pass you unhealthy sexphobia on to your kids.
GTA probably won't harm much younger kids either; I have carefully tried what the effect of GTA SA was when my 4 y.o. kid watched me playing. He does not identify with the character nor does he relate the more violent parts to the real world; his reaction is more like that on a nature video about lions getting some beef. Nevertheless, I'm playing safe; he won't be allowed to play GTA for many years to come.
Anyway - the overly obnoxiously safe ratings only result in the general population ignoring them entirely since they're way out of sync with reality.
This is totally awesome. Gnome has been taunting me for years, continuously demolishing perfectly fine functionality I use daily, but at the same time just not taking it far enough for me to permanently switch. Not anymore though; this will definitely make me switch to some other desktop environment. Awesome. I'm happy for this loss:-)
as I now have to question every process to publish a paper in every country
Since when does papers being published have any value? I suggest not trusting reviews based solely on them being done by popular entities such as "scientific" journals. Instead, get advice from experts and think for yourself. See what experts think, not what a commercial entity that earns money by publishing stuff thinks.
There should not be a place "scientific" journals in modern science. They have no added value whatsoever and in fact harm free sharing of knowledge and information. It's not 1956 anymore - all scientific papers could easily be made available in a free open standardized way. The same goes for reviews. The scientific world failing to get this right is utterly sad.
Even if this scientific journal would have refused to publish this specific hoax, why would we need them? What's added value do they provide?
I doesn't have to be charity. However, the implication that it is is what gets this on slashdot.
This guy is the CEO. He could just as well have Lenovo give this bonus directly to its employees, which it will probably (have to) do anyway. Instead he's trying to make himself look good. Might be worth the trouble; the (apparently) kinder the CEO, the more loyal the employees. But this is not an act of charity; it's just a normal bonus with a well thought-out psychological plan behind it.
Ok, you're right. But Antarctica is _cold_ so you could just use snow cannons. They use about 50 liters per minute so you'd only need about 18 million of them. Those all need 10-20 kilowatt of electricity so that would be an additional 250000 megawatt.
New total: 700000 megawatt:P
I was just last night thinking about ideas to counter sea level rise. I came up with a rather unfeasible plan that I want to share with you since it illustrates the scale of the problem rather nicely.
My plan was to pump all additional water onto the South Pole. In order to counter the projected sea level rise for the 21st century, we'd have to pump up the equivalent of about 10-30 times the flow rate of the Mississippi river (something like 15000 cubic meters per second). The south pole has an elevation of 3000 meter.
(9.81 (meter / (second^2))) * (3 kilometer) * (15000000 (kilogram / second)) =
441450 megawatts
Ridiculous.
I really like the idea of drilling additional holes in nuclear storage facilities!
I guess it shouldn't be too difficult to detect water level changes from the outside of the container. The pulse response of the container will change with the water level. If I can do it by tapping on a bottle with a coin or something like that, a sensor could easily measure this as well.
Good to see your outrageously rude (fuck, stupid, bullshit, propaganda, fuck) reply scoring +4 while my facts-based post somehow now is a troll.
Windturbine changing weather patterns is well-studied and well-known. That's just a fact (which apparently you cannot deal with). Now we don't really make use of wind power on that large a scale so this effect is rather small, but it is also very real. Note the effect works both ways; while my image shows increased cloud cover, cooling the earth, Texas is apparently heated by wind turbines.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17871300
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/46/16115.full
Similarly, getting cold water from the deep ocean will have effects as well, like heating up the ocean must more efficiently than global warming can achieve by itself. And when done on a large scale, these effects may be rather large as well. We'd better think about them beforehand unlike we did with the whole fossil fuel debacle.
Also, obviously the effects of wind turbines as well as deep ocean heating are - for now - extremely small compared to the impact of burning fossil fuel. So they will only work as a pro-oil/coal argument to people that somehow lack logical reasoning skills. Like you apparently.
We're not going to solve the whole anthropocentric climate-change problem if we are not prepared to think about how our actions influence nature and climate. I can understand you'd rather not do that since it apparently makes your view of the world more complex than you can handle. I personally'd rather follow a more scientific approach, which requires taking such effects into account.
I was going to type a lot of text regarding us mere humans not having a clue about the environmental impact of doing this at the large scale, but this image will explain rather well that our apparently mundane energy harvesting stations sometimes have a larger environmental effect on their environment than you might expect.
http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/cloud-528.jpg
True, could be. Or nicotine.
I used to experience something similar, but basically this boils down to either your tent getting way too hot way too early, simply having nothing to do at night and therefore going to bed early or actually using your body during the day (as opposed to sitting in a chair all day), causing it to actually be tired for a change.
I have recently acquired a new obsession - night photography. Now camping fucks up my circadian clock even more:)
Your sleep in headache may very well be related to mild dehydration. You'd probably do better if you drank a tad more before going to sleep.
Inside the slingatron is a spiral tube, or a series of connected spiral tubes, depending on the design, that gyrates on a series of flywheels spread along its length.
That sounds a lot like a spiral version of the Interwebs! It's only a matter of time before Mr. Ted Stevens sues for infringement!
The major downside would be apple.com being down once the sun sets.
Fire up your debugger and start stepping!