There is a big difference between 'refusing to sell' and 'deciding not to invest in infrastructure' to a certain area. The 'stores' represent and investment targeted at likely customers. If they build high speed internet in poor neighborhoods, will they sign enough customers to make it worthwhile or will those people stay on lower cost existing service? If you don't know the answer (I don't) then it might be something to think about.
Nothing like flying around with dozens of exposed blades sitting under you, ready to whack limbs off of anyone who you get too close to. I'm sure this will be a big hit at someone's 4th of July party.
Just make sure that the ambulance services and surgical staff is on call.
That was my first reaction. Those exposed blades are a serious danger. Not only for hitting a person or animal (I can see your dog running to master), but hitting any object on landing will send blade pieces flying. They definitely need a protective screen underneath them.
Models have all predicted warming, and there is warming.
Of course all global warming models predict warming, that was the reason they were created. Any model that doesn't is discarded because it doesn't match recent historical measurements. So its kind of a stupid thing to say. It doesn't add to their validity at all. It might even be a sign of bias if we discard a model that doesn't show continued warming rather than prove or disprove the functions that drive it the 'assumed' wrong way going forward.
I'm not criticizing the models, I'm only responding to that particular statement which scientifically does not stand on its own.
That's largely because there are cooling factors such as sulfate aerosols that are still very difficult to model.
We wish it were that simple, but there is a heck of a lot more than that they they can't accurately model. We don't even know all the inputs, outputs, and feedback mechanisms. We can't even accurately model must smaller complex chaotic systems. Now, to be fair, 'accuracy' in this context is subjective. I think the accuracy is good enough for the prediction that we should have some warming, but not nearly good enough for catastrophic predictions of storms/flooding/drought, etc in specific regions.
Yes, China is able to let science drive its policy rather than politics, and so it is moving to drastically expand nuclear as well as renewable options. They understand the nuclear is an absolutely necessary part of the equation. But politics and scientific ignorance of actual risk keep much of the world from doing what science tells us we should do.
Scattered groups of protesters, many of whom likely could not even carry on a decent conversation about scientific method, some of whom are just on board because its a protest, is not what science needs. Science needs proper representation in the media instead of a bunch of ignorant science and tech reporters who taint everything with their politics.
a senior research scholar with the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University, told Gizmodo.
"Senior Research Scholar" is a title that tells us nothing of the person's qualifications to make the comment. You can just be the oldest student that helped to an internet search and get that title. I'm sure he's not speaking in any professional, and likely not even a thoughtful capacity when he chooses words like "fukced up directions",
You didn't even read to the end of the summary, it seems. The problem is they are not suing over the mistake made by the clinic, but that the child has the wrong genes..
They are suing because the child has the wrong genes because of the mistake.
I read it. Its back up what I spoke of. What you don't realize is that increased gas usage is what has reduced coal to a small part of generation, and solar is still even a smaller part when you don't just look at the summer months (as plainly shown in the graph)
Pedestrians are slightly more likely to suffer a head injury than cyclists per mile travelled.
Car drivers are more likely to be hit by a car than cyclists in general. (Cyclists more likely per mile travelled, but generally they use safer transport like trains for longer distances)
Cyclists overall live much longer lives. So any head injury risk is completely outweighed by the risk of cardiac arrest, cancer, suicide caused by depression, getting stuck in a doorway and starving to death cos you're too fat, etc, etc
All true, but it is still fact that the more you cycle, the more likely it is to injure or kill you.
Since a large number of "hand-wringing concerned citizens" are convinced that all hackers are in it for the money, then it's good to have research that confirms to non-techies what techies have always known at a gut level.
What non-techies really need education in is what constitutes hacking vs simple fraud or other crimes committed via digital channels. But articles like this do nothing to help in that regard, they lump it all together as 'hacking'. Without knowing what hacking really is, there is no benefit is knowing why some do it.
The prototype didn't even have wheels. Its not a flying car. Maybe we don't need flying cars and we should abandon the dream. Personal VTOL might be good enough. Of course, that would eliminate a hype path.
Solar is the least expensive source of power, and saddling developing nations with the high cost of coal power (in addition to the pollution) only benefits the first world companies that want to get paid to build mines and power plants.
Its really no big deal. All these type of claims always come on a Sunday in spring or fall when heating or cooling isn't needed. Coal has not provided much power on these days since Gas became bit.
What they didn't say is that gas, nuclear, and hydro made up almost all generation on this day, wind and solar just a small amount.
If someone emails me and CC's their boss, I assume it is because their boss wanted them to. That means the boss is interested in the issue at hand (usually a good thing) or he's a control freak (usually a bad thing). Either way I don't hold it against the sender. In reality its pretty rare when its not obvious to my why the boss was included.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a big difference between 'refusing to sell' and 'deciding not to invest in infrastructure' to a certain area. The 'stores' represent and investment targeted at likely customers. If they build high speed internet in poor neighborhoods, will they sign enough customers to make it worthwhile or will those people stay on lower cost existing service? If you don't know the answer (I don't) then it might be something to think about.
Nothing like flying around with dozens of exposed blades sitting under you, ready to whack limbs off of anyone who you get too close to. I'm sure this will be a big hit at someone's 4th of July party.
Just make sure that the ambulance services and surgical staff is on call.
That was my first reaction. Those exposed blades are a serious danger. Not only for hitting a person or animal (I can see your dog running to master), but hitting any object on landing will send blade pieces flying. They definitely need a protective screen underneath them.
But there are all the internet based options for entertainment, news, and to some extent sports, providing much more choice than we ever had.
I think there would be much more interest in an 'immoral' avatar.
BASIC on my own, a little bit of machine language which I did not have the patience for, then FORTRAN for school.
Models have all predicted warming, and there is warming.
Of course all global warming models predict warming, that was the reason they were created. Any model that doesn't is discarded because it doesn't match recent historical measurements. So its kind of a stupid thing to say. It doesn't add to their validity at all. It might even be a sign of bias if we discard a model that doesn't show continued warming rather than prove or disprove the functions that drive it the 'assumed' wrong way going forward.
I'm not criticizing the models, I'm only responding to that particular statement which scientifically does not stand on its own.
That's largely because there are cooling factors such as sulfate aerosols that are still very difficult to model.
We wish it were that simple, but there is a heck of a lot more than that they they can't accurately model. We don't even know all the inputs, outputs, and feedback mechanisms. We can't even accurately model must smaller complex chaotic systems. Now, to be fair, 'accuracy' in this context is subjective. I think the accuracy is good enough for the prediction that we should have some warming, but not nearly good enough for catastrophic predictions of storms/flooding/drought, etc in specific regions.
Yes, China is able to let science drive its policy rather than politics, and so it is moving to drastically expand nuclear as well as renewable options. They understand the nuclear is an absolutely necessary part of the equation. But politics and scientific ignorance of actual risk keep much of the world from doing what science tells us we should do.
Scattered groups of protesters, many of whom likely could not even carry on a decent conversation about scientific method, some of whom are just on board because its a protest, is not what science needs. Science needs proper representation in the media instead of a bunch of ignorant science and tech reporters who taint everything with their politics.
These kids need to miss a few meals in their life and then maybe they will get some perspective.
No they won't, they'll protest until they get their meals.
I dare you to compare subsidies on a per MWH generated/to be generated basis. I imagine you will avoid doing so.
a senior research scholar with the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University, told Gizmodo.
"Senior Research Scholar" is a title that tells us nothing of the person's qualifications to make the comment. You can just be the oldest student that helped to an internet search and get that title. I'm sure he's not speaking in any professional, and likely not even a thoughtful capacity when he chooses words like "fukced up directions",
You didn't even read to the end of the summary, it seems. The problem is they are not suing over the mistake made by the clinic, but that the child has the wrong genes. .
They are suing because the child has the wrong genes because of the mistake.
I read it. Its back up what I spoke of. What you don't realize is that increased gas usage is what has reduced coal to a small part of generation, and solar is still even a smaller part when you don't just look at the summer months (as plainly shown in the graph)
Wind makes much more sense for most of Britain than solar. Coal has mostly been displaced by gas.
No it doesn't.
Pedestrians are slightly more likely to suffer a head injury than cyclists per mile travelled.
Car drivers are more likely to be hit by a car than cyclists in general. (Cyclists more likely per mile travelled, but generally they use safer transport like trains for longer distances)
Cyclists overall live much longer lives. So any head injury risk is completely outweighed by the risk of cardiac arrest, cancer, suicide caused by depression, getting stuck in a doorway and starving to death cos you're too fat, etc, etc
All true, but it is still fact that the more you cycle, the more likely it is to injure or kill you.
It's its, it isn't it's. Isn't it?
Science today has its own cancers.
Since a large number of "hand-wringing concerned citizens" are convinced that all hackers are in it for the money, then it's good to have research that confirms to non-techies what techies have always known at a gut level.
What non-techies really need education in is what constitutes hacking vs simple fraud or other crimes committed via digital channels. But articles like this do nothing to help in that regard, they lump it all together as 'hacking'. Without knowing what hacking really is, there is no benefit is knowing why some do it.
what is the glide slope ratio?
It looks to me like it would be less that 1/1. I wouldn't want to be in it when the motors failed.
The prototype didn't even have wheels. Its not a flying car. Maybe we don't need flying cars and we should abandon the dream. Personal VTOL might be good enough. Of course, that would eliminate a hype path.
Solar is the least expensive source of power, and saddling developing nations with the high cost of coal power (in addition to the pollution) only benefits the first world companies that want to get paid to build mines and power plants.
https://qz.com/871907/2016-was-the-year-solar-panels-finally-became-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-just-wait-for-2017/
Even Britain knows solar is a loser, which is why almost none of their power comes from solar.
Its really no big deal. All these type of claims always come on a Sunday in spring or fall when heating or cooling isn't needed. Coal has not provided much power on these days since Gas became bit.
What they didn't say is that gas, nuclear, and hydro made up almost all generation on this day, wind and solar just a small amount.
If someone emails me and CC's their boss, I assume it is because their boss wanted them to. That means the boss is interested in the issue at hand (usually a good thing) or he's a control freak (usually a bad thing). Either way I don't hold it against the sender. In reality its pretty rare when its not obvious to my why the boss was included.