Without doing the research, I'd say a significant factor in desert cooling speed is the low heat retention and transfer characteristics of desert sand. Sand is low density, low heat capacity, and in the absence of moisture simply doesn't retain much energy, nor does it conduct much energy to very far below the surface, so as soon as the heat source is gone, the sand quickly cools. Many desert surface are relatively reflective, which further reduces heat absorption.
With the absence of significant surface heat radiation, then all you have is the air, generally dry and therefore low heat capacity itself, to retain the heat. Add the inevitable convection and you have rapid cooling. A big, moist forest would absorb and hold a lot of heat, and interfere with convection.
It is a business, not public property of course. The point is that a large swath of the public use it.
I made no analogy.
You can be pissed all you want, and you can believe they would be in the right to require vaccinations, but that doesn't mean they will force employees to vaccinate and expose themselves to the possible legal hassles and costs without a regulatory or legal requirement or at least a solid legal precedent.
Simply convince Disney not to worry about discrimination lawsuits, those that blame health issues on a forced vaccination, or those that believe their medical privacy rights are violated. It sure would be a lot easier to get Disney to do that 'right thing' if it were clearly backed by the law. That would be the easy way to get it to happen, IMO.
Now, what to do about all those vaccinated customers......
RTFA, they are not internet connected. They can be access over the internet if someone takes a device to the pump, connects to the serial interface, and connected to a gateway device to the internet.
Well, I assumed you were talking in practical, real world terms, where risk and exposure are realities that drive corporate decisions rather than idealistic and generalized logic. I wasn't making a philosophical statement, but rather pointing to how best it should be approached to achieve an end goal of actually requiring vaccinations.
But, through all that and your odd attempt to twist it to make yourself feel better, my original point is well backed by my statements. It should be public policy, thus enabling the companies to do it.
What they 'should do' and what the feel like the 'can do' aren't always the same. And with all that, there is little to suggest that vaccinating employees would prevent the problem, as customers, some percentage not vaccinated, will continue stroll though...
Name something which doesn't carry a legal risk in the US,
A non-sequitur. Companies always try to minimize legal risk, the fact that there are many is irrelevant. What is relevant is the extent and likelihood of the risk and the exposure.
where people will sue for anything. Disney's just as likely to get sued by employees who get infectious diseases because they didn't take well know, very safe, measures to help prevent their spread.
I would not agree with that from a risk standpoint. I would say that, if they required vaccination, they are much more likely to see legal problems from 1) those claiming discrimination (religious objections & 2) those claiming required vaccinations caused health problems.
Since no public places presently have any assurance that others are vaccinated, it would be hard to prove that employees are at exposed to risks that would indicate negligence, and it would be a particularly difficult legal basis since requiring vaccinations is not a normal employer practice in the US. Yes, there may be some legal challenges, but much easier to deal with and much less likely to cost a lot to resolve.
Your opinion may differ, that is fine, but I've seen the types of lawsuits that employees bring to large corporations, and having a legal basis behind what you do makes things much, much easier and less risky.
I think that is outside the frame of the point, so maybe I should have been more precise and narrowed it down to specifying treatments, medications, etc. Separating employees is a common sense response, not a treatment that could have risks, or perceived risks. If regulations required quarantine and specified how, so much the better, that might help Disney do it right.
Employers should not be put in a position where they are giving medical advice or direction. If there is a reason that large, public centered facilities or parks should have required vaccinations, then that needs to be public policy, not corporate policy.
I think you are probably taking in the engine sound feedback more than you realize. Not saying you couldn't perform just fine with a silent engine, but that sound typically becomes part of the response environment.
I don't like driving without a tach either, but I also don't feel the need to look at it to shift. I bet if you had driven that Suzuki awhile and gotten used to it, you likely would be relying on the engine sound for shifting along with the other feedbacks.
Yes, they might benefit from giving that option, but for some reason they determined it would not be a positive factor from a market perspective. Only they know the reasoning.
OTOH, why would someone buy a car if they don't like the sound? It appears that consumers not liking the sound to this point has not been an issue. Awareness could possibly impact that in the future.
But you agree that you want to hear it. So then, tell me specifically what is wrong with adjusting that sound to make it more pleasing to the customer?
Anybody that has driven a manual shifter knows that engine noise is a useful feedback mechanism to the driver. Making the sound more pleasant is a good thing. How much it is useful now is up for debate, but I find engine sound feedback to be useful in driving efficiently even though I also prefer it to be as quiet a possible.
Yes, its about aesthetics as well, just like some paint jobs, or even obnoxious bumper stickers.
Underground service cables are common throughout the US, with a riser just outside the house to a box, an easy place to cut cable TV and phone lines. At best they are protected only by PVC conduit, but sometimes even a section of cable it exposed.
I said "do more with less", not decrease output. You still have not addressed anything regarding efficiency improvements, rather you seem to assume that the IRS is operating at maximum efficiency already and there is nothing they can do to improve.
So, what are the unique characteristics of the task of collecting taxes and performing audits that prevent efficiency improvements? Are you saying that no companies don't perform tasks with similar complexities? Back up your huff with some stuff.
Yes, it's called consensus and no, it isn't science. Not when politicians do it. Not when scientists do it.
That's the failing of the submitter. Nobody ever said this vote was part of the science, so there is no reason argue it isn't. But alas, many idiots will anyhow.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I've always wondered who actually has ever bought anything from Skymall. I mean, we've all looked, but who has actually done the deed?
Anyone? Don't be afraid to admit it... come out of the shadows and confess.
Without doing the research, I'd say a significant factor in desert cooling speed is the low heat retention and transfer characteristics of desert sand. Sand is low density, low heat capacity, and in the absence of moisture simply doesn't retain much energy, nor does it conduct much energy to very far below the surface, so as soon as the heat source is gone, the sand quickly cools. Many desert surface are relatively reflective, which further reduces heat absorption.
With the absence of significant surface heat radiation, then all you have is the air, generally dry and therefore low heat capacity itself, to retain the heat. Add the inevitable convection and you have rapid cooling. A big, moist forest would absorb and hold a lot of heat, and interfere with convection.
It is a business, not public property of course. The point is that a large swath of the public use it.
I made no analogy.
You can be pissed all you want, and you can believe they would be in the right to require vaccinations, but that doesn't mean they will force employees to vaccinate and expose themselves to the possible legal hassles and costs without a regulatory or legal requirement or at least a solid legal precedent.
Simply convince Disney not to worry about discrimination lawsuits, those that blame health issues on a forced vaccination, or those that believe their medical privacy rights are violated. It sure would be a lot easier to get Disney to do that 'right thing' if it were clearly backed by the law. That would be the easy way to get it to happen, IMO.
Now, what to do about all those vaccinated customers......
RTFA, they are not internet connected. They can be access over the internet if someone takes a device to the pump, connects to the serial interface, and connected to a gateway device to the internet.
Well, I assumed you were talking in practical, real world terms, where risk and exposure are realities that drive corporate decisions rather than idealistic and generalized logic. I wasn't making a philosophical statement, but rather pointing to how best it should be approached to achieve an end goal of actually requiring vaccinations.
But, through all that and your odd attempt to twist it to make yourself feel better, my original point is well backed by my statements. It should be public policy, thus enabling the companies to do it.
What they 'should do' and what the feel like the 'can do' aren't always the same. And with all that, there is little to suggest that vaccinating employees would prevent the problem, as customers, some percentage not vaccinated, will continue stroll though...
Name something which doesn't carry a legal risk in the US,
A non-sequitur. Companies always try to minimize legal risk, the fact that there are many is irrelevant. What is relevant is the extent and likelihood of the risk and the exposure.
where people will sue for anything. Disney's just as likely to get sued by employees who get infectious diseases because they didn't take well know, very safe, measures to help prevent their spread.
I would not agree with that from a risk standpoint. I would say that, if they required vaccination, they are much more likely to see legal problems from 1) those claiming discrimination (religious objections & 2) those claiming required vaccinations caused health problems.
Since no public places presently have any assurance that others are vaccinated, it would be hard to prove that employees are at exposed to risks that would indicate negligence, and it would be a particularly difficult legal basis since requiring vaccinations is not a normal employer practice in the US. Yes, there may be some legal challenges, but much easier to deal with and much less likely to cost a lot to resolve.
Your opinion may differ, that is fine, but I've seen the types of lawsuits that employees bring to large corporations, and having a legal basis behind what you do makes things much, much easier and less risky.
Yes, but it also carries legal risks if there is no regulation to back it up.
I think that is outside the frame of the point, so maybe I should have been more precise and narrowed it down to specifying treatments, medications, etc. Separating employees is a common sense response, not a treatment that could have risks, or perceived risks. If regulations required quarantine and specified how, so much the better, that might help Disney do it right.
Employers should not be put in a position where they are giving medical advice or direction. If there is a reason that large, public centered facilities or parks should have required vaccinations, then that needs to be public policy, not corporate policy.
And from those who think "et cetera" adds something as well.
I think you are probably taking in the engine sound feedback more than you realize. Not saying you couldn't perform just fine with a silent engine, but that sound typically becomes part of the response environment.
I don't like driving without a tach either, but I also don't feel the need to look at it to shift. I bet if you had driven that Suzuki awhile and gotten used to it, you likely would be relying on the engine sound for shifting along with the other feedbacks.
'inflicted' with a more pleasant sound?
It could have been someone with a better ability to add to the conversation than you, and it most likely was.
Yes, they might benefit from giving that option, but for some reason they determined it would not be a positive factor from a market perspective. Only they know the reasoning.
OTOH, why would someone buy a car if they don't like the sound? It appears that consumers not liking the sound to this point has not been an issue. Awareness could possibly impact that in the future.
Crap! I never get away with anything.
But you agree that you want to hear it. So then, tell me specifically what is wrong with adjusting that sound to make it more pleasing to the customer?
Anybody that has driven a manual shifter knows that engine noise is a useful feedback mechanism to the driver. Making the sound more pleasant is a good thing. How much it is useful now is up for debate, but I find engine sound feedback to be useful in driving efficiently even though I also prefer it to be as quiet a possible.
Yes, its about aesthetics as well, just like some paint jobs, or even obnoxious bumper stickers.
...it could even have been the blogger, in a stunt to garner even more attention.
Underground service cables are common throughout the US, with a riser just outside the house to a box, an easy place to cut cable TV and phone lines. At best they are protected only by PVC conduit, but sometimes even a section of cable it exposed.
I said "do more with less", not decrease output. You still have not addressed anything regarding efficiency improvements, rather you seem to assume that the IRS is operating at maximum efficiency already and there is nothing they can do to improve.
So, what are the unique characteristics of the task of collecting taxes and performing audits that prevent efficiency improvements? Are you saying that no companies don't perform tasks with similar complexities? Back up your huff with some stuff.
*jelly roll*
Yes, it's called consensus and no, it isn't science. Not when politicians do it. Not when scientists do it.
That's the failing of the submitter. Nobody ever said this vote was part of the science, so there is no reason argue it isn't. But alas, many idiots will anyhow.
Interesting thing is that there is no amendment that states GW is a hoax.
I doubt you can find any real world examples of that. It seems that most high level breaches are the result of phishing or similar schemes.