If bigger pupil is better, why aren't they always big ?
Anybody with some experience in photography knows that bigger pupil/aperture results in fuzzier image. You lose depth of field. Also, the further you go out to the edge of the lens, the more distortion and aberration you get. On the other hand, tiny aperture is also bad because of diffraction effects.
Two Finns go into a bar, and order beers. They drink the beers in silence, and when they finish them, they order two more beers. Still without saying a word, they finish the second set of beers, and proceed to order a third glass. Halfway the 3rd beer, one of them says: "good beer", to which the other replies: "did we come here to drink or to chitchat ?"
This is not retaliation, this is actually good news for EU consumers, because it allows competition with other app stores. It's hard to compete with free + hidden costs.
We had the same heating [wordpress.com]from ~1915 to ~1945 as we saw from ~1970 to 2000
Looking at GISS LOTI numbers directly, I see about 0.3 degrees heating from 1915-1945, and about 0.5 degrees between 1970 and 2000, and about 0.75 degrees between 1975 and 2015.
I recommend you do the same, instead of relying on Bob Tisdale's graphs.
ENSO moves heat between atmosphere and ocean, so it influences average temperature of the surface air which is what we usually talk about when discussing temperature.
So when you yell at the kids for leaving the front door open in the winter, they'll say: "it's only been cold for 10 minutes out of 5 billion years... meaningless drivel".
People cannot always move over to the left lane if there's no gap there, or if that lane is moving much faster. The cannot always keep their speed either, because there may not be a gap big enough on the lane you're trying to merge in. When they slow down, the gap in front of them gets bigger, and you can safely slip in there.
As long as self-driving cars and human-driven cars mingle on the roads, the self-driving cars should err on the side of excessive caution rather than insisting on legal right-of-way.
Won't work. If the car is recognizable as self-driving, and it is known to be super cautious, people will stop yielding to it. It needs to be driving like a human, claiming its space, and forcing other cars to brake to avoid accidents.
A digitally scanned actor will probably want to have a say in the roles that he/she will play. I imagine that they don't want to be portrayed in porn movies, for instance.
I always found it fascinating that CO2 levels moving from 200ppm (0.0002) to 400ppm (0.0004), a change of 0.0002, is the cause of all this warming.
If you compressed the atmosphere to a layer of equal density, it would be about 8 km thick. If you're walking outside in the sun, wearing 2mm thick sunglasses, the ratio of sunglass to atmosphere is 0.25ppm.
Do you find it fascinating that 0.25ppm worth of sunglasses blocks most of the light ?
If we moved all the CO2 from the atmosphere to a single pure layer, then 200 ppm would mean a layer of 5 feet, and 400 ppm would be 10 feet. IR works as a "sunglass" for IR.
The next step will be digital actors, created from scratch. These don't age at all, do exactly what you want, don't act like divas and will work for peanuts.
Also, although money flows out of the country, goods flow in
Money is nothing but a standardized form of IOU. The US dollar is valuable, only because it carries a promise to the recipient that they can give back the money to the US, in return for something (goods, labour) of equal value. If you keep promising for decade after decade, and never return goods of equal value, you're borrowing for imported goods, just like a drunk is borrowing from the bar when he lets the tab run up and never pays it back.
Slashdot Mirror
People need a lot less oil than they need water. Transporting water by pipe quickly becomes infeasible.
Sure, but in low light conditions, pupil is already maximally dilated, even when not in an alert state.
The point is that it doesn't make sense for pupil to be in suboptimal state when not alert. It doesn't cost anything.
If bigger pupil is better, why aren't they always big ?
Anybody with some experience in photography knows that bigger pupil/aperture results in fuzzier image. You lose depth of field. Also, the further you go out to the edge of the lens, the more distortion and aberration you get. On the other hand, tiny aperture is also bad because of diffraction effects.
causes our pupils to dilate so that we can take in information more easily.
What ? How does that work exactly ? Bigger hole = more bandwidth ?
Two Finns go into a bar, and order beers. They drink the beers in silence, and when they finish them, they order two more beers. Still without saying a word, they finish the second set of beers, and proceed to order a third glass. Halfway the 3rd beer, one of them says: "good beer", to which the other replies: "did we come here to drink or to chitchat ?"
The solar cycle is huge, and back then no we didn't know the significance, it was at best an each way bet with the information on hand.
Solar cycle is not huge, it's about 0.1%
http://www.am.ub.edu/~blai/com...
In 2005, it was very well known that greenhouse effect was much bigger.
No, it's the other way around. The value of bitcoin determines how much effort people will put in mining.
The word "intrinsic" is misleading. Nothing has intrinsic value. Value always depends on context.
Bitcoin mining involves doing SHA256 hashes, that's not something you can do faster with a quantum computer.
This is not retaliation, this is actually good news for EU consumers, because it allows competition with other app stores. It's hard to compete with free + hidden costs.
We had the same heating [wordpress.com]from ~1915 to ~1945 as we saw from ~1970 to 2000
Looking at GISS LOTI numbers directly, I see about 0.3 degrees heating from 1915-1945, and about 0.5 degrees between 1970 and 2000, and about 0.75 degrees between 1975 and 2015.
I recommend you do the same, instead of relying on Bob Tisdale's graphs.
ENSO moves heat between atmosphere and ocean, so it influences average temperature of the surface air which is what we usually talk about when discussing temperature.
if you don't want to accept data that may be a bit contrary to your chosen world-view...
You have just described yourself.
So when you yell at the kids for leaving the front door open in the winter, they'll say: "it's only been cold for 10 minutes out of 5 billion years... meaningless drivel".
If we're all doomed in several billlion years, fine
Actually, I am doomed in a few decades at best.
Sure we do, it's just going to take a million of CO2 capture plants and several decades.
Except that plants need good soil with good temperature, water and nutrients. The places on Earth that are suitable, are already full of crops.
I wonder what would be the sound of a suitcase full of $20 bills. I just need some funding.
In my home state slowing down to allow a car to Merge will get you a ticket
So the minimum speed on the freeway is the same as the maximum ? That's stupid.
THEIR LANE is the one that has the "Yield" sign
And what are they supposed to do when they run out of lane ? Just wait until nightfall ?
People cannot always move over to the left lane if there's no gap there, or if that lane is moving much faster. The cannot always keep their speed either, because there may not be a gap big enough on the lane you're trying to merge in. When they slow down, the gap in front of them gets bigger, and you can safely slip in there.
As long as self-driving cars and human-driven cars mingle on the roads, the self-driving cars should err on the side of excessive caution rather than insisting on legal right-of-way.
Won't work. If the car is recognizable as self-driving, and it is known to be super cautious, people will stop yielding to it. It needs to be driving like a human, claiming its space, and forcing other cars to brake to avoid accidents.
GP is arguing for signs for human drivers. The autonomous vehicles have access to maps with the information.
A digitally scanned actor will probably want to have a say in the roles that he/she will play. I imagine that they don't want to be portrayed in porn movies, for instance.
I always found it fascinating that CO2 levels moving from 200ppm (0.0002) to 400ppm (0.0004), a change of 0.0002, is the cause of all this warming.
If you compressed the atmosphere to a layer of equal density, it would be about 8 km thick. If you're walking outside in the sun, wearing 2mm thick sunglasses, the ratio of sunglass to atmosphere is 0.25ppm.
Do you find it fascinating that 0.25ppm worth of sunglasses blocks most of the light ?
If we moved all the CO2 from the atmosphere to a single pure layer, then 200 ppm would mean a layer of 5 feet, and 400 ppm would be 10 feet. IR works as a "sunglass" for IR.
The next step will be digital actors, created from scratch. These don't age at all, do exactly what you want, don't act like divas and will work for peanuts.
You do it by making trade and production within your borders efficient
Yes, and that's what I would call 'competitive'. The ability to create products that the rest of the world desires enough to buy them from you.
Also, although money flows out of the country, goods flow in
Money is nothing but a standardized form of IOU. The US dollar is valuable, only because it carries a promise to the recipient that they can give back the money to the US, in return for something (goods, labour) of equal value. If you keep promising for decade after decade, and never return goods of equal value, you're borrowing for imported goods, just like a drunk is borrowing from the bar when he lets the tab run up and never pays it back.