It is a silly question, but I think not (exactly) for that reason.
You *hear* about scientists being "surprised", because that means they've discovered something. They might not actually be surprised, but as others have pointed out, journalists like to say they are.
You don't hear about everything scientists (and everyone else) do every day that works out exactly, unsurprisingly, as it should. Although if you're comparing science to religion, that's the part that really matters. Science is fundamentally the pursuit of models that can be used to make reliable predictions.
The goal of science is boring reliability. The exciting part of science is surprises, because that means you get to contribute something to achieving a future lack of surprises.
Probably, but judging by conversations I've had with scientists their favourite part of the job is WTF!! moments. For example, when they discover some really weird ass cosmic phenomenon like Tabby's star, find pre-Columbian native American DNA in Scandinavians or that time they went looking for Y-chromosome Adam, determined the modern human Y-chromosome is 75.000 year old and then found a 338.000 year old Y-chromosome during a routine commercial ancestry analysis procedure.
Lithium batteries have a round-trip efficiency of about 95%.
For hydrogen, it is about 60%.
So lithium wins for most applications.
Hydrogen wins when weight is a really big concern. So it may make sense for aviation.
Hydrogen also scales well, since big tanks have a better volume-to-area ratio. So it may make sense for ships.
For static applications like grid-storage, sodium-ion or vanadium-redox may be better than either lithium or hydrogen.
But for cars or smaller, lithium batteries are the way to go. You will never see a hydrogen fuel cell in a cell phone.
Hydrogen wins when you need to store store truly massively amounts of excess energy which is something you cannot currently do with batteries. That is the one big thing what still makes Hydrogen interesting despite the low conversion efficiency. If you are producing huge amounts of excess energy and can't store it in battery arrays, storing it as Hydrogen at 50% round trip efficiency is still better than letting all that energy go to waste assuming you can do the hydrogen conversion cost effectively. The currently most sensible thing to do with this hydrogen is use it to power always on gas power plants to supplement solar and wind power and then use the energy to charge cars or whatever else it is you need the energy for. This, again, assumes that you can do the round trip conversion of electric energy into hydrogen cost effectively.
Hydrogen is a way of storing energy the same as a battery. Today batteries are better in every possible way except possibly air travel. Hydrogen is dangerous, hard to store and hard to transport. Again, except possibly for air travel, hydrogen is either expensive or less efficient to turn back into mechanical energy.
True, but the reason hydrogen storage is still interesting is that the storage capacity you can achieve with hydrogen based completely dwarfs anything you can achieve with batteries, hydro storage or practically anything else at the moment. The round trip efficiency is currently between 30-40 %, it can realistically be increased to 50% in the near future. If you recover the stored energy by burning the hydrogen in in a combined cycle gas power plant the efficiencies is as high as 60%.
I get why they are not worried about Disney, I'm not subscribing to Disney's service just to see their movies and Amazon's Prime Video, from what I have seen of it is mostly a pile of junk with handful of notable exceptions. Fortnight I'm not really interested in but many other people are so I can see how they would be a valid concern.
It you expected it, it's not much of a discovery, is it?
So why ask "Why are scientists are constantly surprised by what they discover? Seems like a silly question to me, surprise kind of goes with the territory if you do science. If you want absolute certainty go and become a born-again Christian.
The Scientests aren't actually surprised
It's the Reporters writing the news stories that are surprised
No, scientists do not operate in absolute certainty of what they will discover, they are regularly surprised by what they discover. It is the religionists who have absolute certainty because they are the only ones I have met that claim they can explain everything in the universe,... with a collection of ancient religious texts and the fickle opinions of their clergy.
No, it looks like they are only fucked if their hit rate goes down or if they start questioning the wisdom of the 'suggestions' their corporate overlords have on what topics they should concentrate their writing on and what slant their writing should have. It's pretty much the same as various parts of the Murdoch media like, say.... Fox News for example. Except I expect entities like the Huffington Post to be much more subtle about it. Fox News is, in the best of gutter press news reporting tradition, a bit of a shotgun blast to the face while outfits like the Huffington post are more refined, like a rifle.
Huffpost is not long for this world. They are owned by AOL/Verizon. Verizon gives companies 2-3 years to 'prove themselves'. Then they come in and tear shit up if it is not 'performing'. There is no way huffingtonpost is performing. Dialup is performing better from what I remember.
Media outlets owned by corporations or other special interest groups operate by different rules than other companies. The way they perform is measured by how many people they reach because that translates directly into the ability to shape public opionin which has all kinds of benefits for the owner of the outlet other that what nickels and dimes they earn off of it. If a media outlet turns a profit that is only gravy.
Nice numbers, now can Netflix please pick up the fourth season 'Colony' which got axed by the bean counters at USA Network this summer? It was just starting to get really interesting.
That's the first time I've heard anyone make the accusation that state borders are gerrymandered. And I rather doubt that was actually your intent.
Quick civics lesson: Virtually all electors cast their vote based on who won the popular vote in their state. Any gerrymandering (redrawing of voting boundaries) would require redrawing interstate borders - which I don't believe has ever happened to a state after it has joined the union.
Now, the electoral college *is* set up so that each state gets as many electoral votes as it has congressional representatives, which does mean that some citizen's vote counts for more than others, the same way some citizens get more congressional representation, since states get two senators each, regardless of population. And it was set up that way for a reason - so that the small, densely-populated states couldn't just ignore the large rural ones. Without that, the large rural states would have had little incentive to join the nation in the first place. Who would want to be the farming-bitch for the cities, with little political power?
We could change the laws for how states get federal representation - but to do so we'd need a constitutional amendment to be ratified by all those states that would be delegated to political bitch status - and they'd have to be stupid to support that.
So basically there is no justice in distributing electoral college delegates in proportion to population so that the results of elections actually reflect the way most people voted or even dump that antiquated 'Electoral College' that makes the USA the laughingstocks of the entire democratic world. However, there is oodles and oodles of justice in the inhabitants of a few underpopulated tiny states shoving their ultra conservative values, homophobia, racism and christian fundamentalist fanaticism down the throats of much larger populations who have no interest in being being bible thumped in a christian conservative utopia? The whole idea behind democracy in all of its forms tends to be that the majority rules. Only in the US is there an abstraction layer that ensures that a small rural elite gets to override the votes of the majority of the population. Sooner or later the constitution will be changed an these red states will become 'political bitches' as you put it because, with the Republicans cuddling up to the ultra right wing fringe and pinning it's hopes on white pensioners and angry white racists, demographics are not working in their favour and sooner or later they won't even be able to gerrymander, voter intimidate, voter disenfranchise and cheat their way out of the corner they have painted themselves into.
No, there just aren't enough idiots in US to elect Trump, so significant number of non-idiots voted for him. You need to understand why non-idiots voted for him instead of just calling them idiots or this will happen again.
There weren't even enough non-idiots to elect Trump since he never got the majority of the popular vote. It took an archaic gerrymandered assembly know as the 'Electoral College', which no other nation has ever seen enough sense to copy, to make Trump president.
I guess you missed the part about where the guys doing the faking failed in their attempt? If you can't do the job, why should you get paid?
That is the risk you take in business. These guys were still due money for the work they did. Or do you think that when Ford Motors designs a car that flops on the market that Ford Motors then doesn't have to pay the engineers that did the work or the workers who assembled the things or the contractors who supplied the parts?
Those polls that are completely and utterly useless in pretty much every respect? Wake me up when something newsworthy happens.
Find solace in the fact that after these guys faked the polls for them Trump/Cohen cheated them out of their payment which is standard Trump Organisation practice. The lesson here is, never do business with anybody whose business practices you haven't thoroughly researched.
Trump isn't taking a "hardline" stance on China, Trump is a bullshitter pretending to act hard hoping China will blink first. China plays the long game and will easily, easily outlast that nitwit's attention span. Plus, Trump is prison bound.
So there's that.
Is that his strategy? I always figured his strategy was to get in China's face until a Chinese state bank suddenly invests a ton of cash into one of his ventures, at which point he would cave in to China on something China wants like he did over ZTE after the Chinese state suddenly loaned his developers $500 million to build his Lido city project. Transactional foreign policy... the Trump presidency is beginning to remind me of the Roman Republic during the Jugurthine war: Rome is a city for sale and doomed to destruction if it ever finds a buyer.
Political correctness is the godless religious offshoot of the godless religion of communism. By supporting the lie of political correctness, the left makes it about who the biggest liar is. Since the right is a bigger liar, it wins and we numbly drift into calamity.
Political correctness exists on both flanks of the political spectrum, there is such a thing as right-wing political correctness.
What about pesticides and other toxins as well? We're dumping this shit into our environment and some of it is persistent. Agriculture is one thing, but whenever I see a house with a perfect, green lawn, I want to smack the owners in the face.
The EU issued a blanket ban all neonicotinoids last year. This is the stuff that is largely responsible a 75%-85% collapse of the insect population in the EU zone. I don't know how much those are used in Puerto Rico but neonicotinoids are certainly capable of causing a 70% plus reduction in insect populations so I won't be crying any rivers if this stuff gets banned elsewhere too. It's just one of many toxic substances that I don't want in my food.
Lest we forget this was forced upon them by DieselGate.
So what? At least they are doing it. The more important question is: Will Trump do his utmost to prevent this being that he hates German car companies and considers elections unpatriotic, or will he take credit for it? Maybe he'll be so conflicted his brain will panic and reboot?
Problem is that the greater the speed in an accident the more likely someone is to be seriously injured or killed. Further the *PUBLIC* roads are just that a shared public resource.
Your rights to go as fast as you want stop at my nose.
Get back to me when you are a happy for killing someone in an accident to be treated as murder.
In the meantime speeding is a crime, and speed cameras only punish those who choose to recklessly endanger other people for their convenience and/or pleasure.
I would share your view (about the existence of speed limits anyway, if not of cameras) if speed limits in the US were reasonable, and if enforcement were uniform.
Instead, the reality (and everyone knows it) is that speed limits are set too low, and therefore almost everybody speeds an "acceptable" amount, except for a few antisocial types who think they are doing good by driving under the limit but who actually create danger through the high speed differentials that they create.
The problem goes beyond a few 'aristocrats'. There are several neighbourhoods in the city I live in that are used by commuters to bypass massive congestions during business hours. These residential streets literally have a speed bump every 80-100m because otherwise kids, pedestrians and residents getting in and out of their car would be mown down and vehicles backing out of drive ways would get T-boned on a regular basis by people driving at highway speeds through residential areas. The same basically applies to highways. I have zero sympathy for some speed demon who kills himself by wrapping his car around a bridge pylon at 190 km/h, I do very much care about the family of 5 whose plans for the day did not include having the tangled wreck of that asshole's car come flying through their front windshield after it bounced off the bridge pylon. I've seen some amazing traffic accidents in my time, including a Porsche that managed to fly across the left hand lane, across the central separator island and into oncoming traffic (don't ask me how he did that, I drove past the scene after it happened) and a Toyota Landcruiser that somehow managed to drive up a a vertical concrete bridge pylon until it ended up sitting on it's back door on the ground and it's nose pointing skyward. Speed limits are there for a reason.
Speed cameras are a dishonest and regressive way to tax the population. Don't let local politicians sell you on BS that it is for traffic calming and safety.
They have a point and they also don't have a point. There are speed camera firms that actually deliver presentations to municipal politicians on how they can 'maximise revenue' from speed cameras, I have seen camera footage taken by TV journalists who mounted a sting operation at a major speed camera exhibition in Europe. Those cameras these yellow vested hooligans can knock down for all I care. However, there is a street in my town where there are two schools and a communal home for blind people, the max speed is 30km/h and people used to regularly blast through there at 70-80km/h until some f**ktard ran over a 3rd grader and they set up a bunch of speed average cameras on that street. Alluvasudden everybody drives through there at 30 km/h, I wonder why?... could it be that people only ever learn through large amounts of money disappearing from their wallet? Those camera serves a very useful purpose because the world is full of self absorbed asshats who seem to consider themselves to be on a holy mission from god to never drive slower than the number written on the maximum speed signs and that the red traffic lights don't apply to them.
Which is bullshit. WHY does the location even matter if you are paying per stream???
i.e.
If I travel outside the country I get hit by their bullshit geo-IP blocking. I'm *paying* for the fucking service but can't use it -- all because I'm out of the country??? WTF! (Yes, I know its because of the greed of the Content Creators who license their IP and not technically Netflix's fault but this is still bullshit.)
All these shenanigans do is just drive people to use proxies.
Blocked? When I travel outside my country I get the Netflix selection available under the licensing contracts for the country I'm currently in. The main thing that would worry me with this new AI based sharing detector is that it would malfunction as badly as the one built into Microsoft products which constantly nags me to enter the MS subscription password, seemingly every time I cross a border.
TFA made no claims about having proven that medieval women were literate. It has been well documented that women were literate since very ancient times. The literacy issue is a straw man you created.
"Researcher Christina Warinner said this finding from the 11th century was unprecedented in showing more women were literate, educated and encouraged to read at that time."
This has been a well known fact for centuries, the whole point of TFA and the significance of the discovery is actually presented in TFS which states: "The researchers said this challenged long-held beliefs that women had played little role in the European Middle Ages in producing literary and written texts which came largely from religious institutions,"
Also, I have read period documents written by clergy involved in visitations during the Middle Ages and these people took their work really seriously. Your completely unsubstantiated claim they all were corrupt is unfair.
Just as well that I didn't claim that, then. I implied that coverage was patchy.
You dismissed my argument with the rather broad claim that most if not all clergy were universally corrupt and open to bribery: And of course they were 100% uncorruptable and diligent, like all clergy everywhere are renowned as being.... which is complete bull crap.
Ecclesiastical corruption did happen but it also regularly led to reform movements within the church and demands for reform among the civilian population. The biggest manifestation of this being the Protestant reformation.
Yet the reformation came out of frustration at the lack of reform over the previous 200 years. This is the same as the Latin point earlier - there was a revolt because there was a need for it. You're trying to have it both ways/
No you made the sweeping claim that all clergy everywhere is 100% corruptible And of course they were 100% uncorruptable and diligent, like all clergy everywhere are renowned as being.... which is demonstrably a boldfaced lie. All I did was point out that the reformation of the 16th century was started by reform oriented clergy and supported by reform oriented civilians. The protestant reformation was not by any stretch of the imagination the only large scale reform in church history. There was a whole string of reform movements over the last 1000 yars.
Uhhh... no. The church regularly cracked down on education and what they called ‘feral latin’ among the clergy. Bishops and commissions of scholarly monks conducted regular visitations in parishes to judge and report the state of affairs.
They had to crack down on it because it existed. And of course they were 100% uncorruptable and diligent, like all clergy everywhere are renowned as being.
Plus, lapis lazuli was imported from Afghanistan and was at times more valuable than gold so this woman was an illustrator of some very high end texts. What is important about this discovery is more than anything else that it constitutes proof of the fact that women, presumably nuns, as well as monks were involved in the production of the most splendid manuscripts of the time because nobody except a first rate illustrator would have something as obscenely expensive as lapis lazuli in their dental plaque.
Sure. None of which has any bearing on literacy.
It has a bearing on what TFA is about, I.e. that women were involved in the creation of some of the most exclusive illustrated manuscripts of the period, real masretmaster pieces like the Codex Aureus made for the emperor himself. When the radiator grill costs its weight in gold and the car the the grill is going into costs the yearly revenue of a whole county you do not let just any hack handle the assembly work. TFA made no claims about having proven that medieval women were literate. It has been well documented that women were literate since very ancient times. The literacy issue is a straw man you created. Also, I have read period documents written by clergy involved in visitations during the Middle Ages and these people took their work really seriously. Your completely unsubstantiated claim they all were corrupt is unfair. Ecclesiastical corruption did happen but it also regularly led to reform movements within the church and demands for reform among the civilian population. The biggest manifestation of this being the Protestant reformation.
I don't see why this implies literacy or even real education - many male monks were barely able to do more than copy what was in front of them and lots of priests in non-Italian countries could read out texts to their congregations without actually understanding Latin.
Manuscripts were produced in production lines - does someone assembling radiator grills for Ford know how to design a car?
Uhhh... no. The church regularly cracked down on education and what they called ‘feral latin’ among the clergy. Bishops and commissions of scholarly monks conducted regular visitations in parishes to judge and report the state of affairs. Plus, lapis lazuli was imported from Afghanistan and was at times more valuable than gold so this woman was an illustrator of some very high end texts. What is important about this discovery is more than anything else that it constitutes proof of the fact that women, presumably nuns, as well as monks were involved in the production of the most splendid manuscripts of the time because nobody except a first rate illustrator would have something as obscenely expensive as lapis lazuli in their dental plaque.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a silly question, but I think not (exactly) for that reason.
You *hear* about scientists being "surprised", because that means they've discovered something. They might not actually be surprised, but as others have pointed out, journalists like to say they are.
You don't hear about everything scientists (and everyone else) do every day that works out exactly, unsurprisingly, as it should. Although if you're comparing science to religion, that's the part that really matters. Science is fundamentally the pursuit of models that can be used to make reliable predictions.
The goal of science is boring reliability. The exciting part of science is surprises, because that means you get to contribute something to achieving a future lack of surprises.
Probably, but judging by conversations I've had with scientists their favourite part of the job is WTF!! moments. For example, when they discover some really weird ass cosmic phenomenon like Tabby's star, find pre-Columbian native American DNA in Scandinavians or that time they went looking for Y-chromosome Adam, determined the modern human Y-chromosome is 75.000 year old and then found a 338.000 year old Y-chromosome during a routine commercial ancestry analysis procedure.
Lithium batteries have a round-trip efficiency of about 95%.
For hydrogen, it is about 60%.
So lithium wins for most applications.
Hydrogen wins when weight is a really big concern. So it may make sense for aviation.
Hydrogen also scales well, since big tanks have a better volume-to-area ratio. So it may make sense for ships.
For static applications like grid-storage, sodium-ion or vanadium-redox may be better than either lithium or hydrogen.
But for cars or smaller, lithium batteries are the way to go. You will never see a hydrogen fuel cell in a cell phone.
Hydrogen wins when you need to store store truly massively amounts of excess energy which is something you cannot currently do with batteries. That is the one big thing what still makes Hydrogen interesting despite the low conversion efficiency. If you are producing huge amounts of excess energy and can't store it in battery arrays, storing it as Hydrogen at 50% round trip efficiency is still better than letting all that energy go to waste assuming you can do the hydrogen conversion cost effectively. The currently most sensible thing to do with this hydrogen is use it to power always on gas power plants to supplement solar and wind power and then use the energy to charge cars or whatever else it is you need the energy for. This, again, assumes that you can do the round trip conversion of electric energy into hydrogen cost effectively.
Hydrogen is a way of storing energy the same as a battery. Today batteries are better in every possible way except possibly air travel. Hydrogen is dangerous, hard to store and hard to transport. Again, except possibly for air travel, hydrogen is either expensive or less efficient to turn back into mechanical energy.
True, but the reason hydrogen storage is still interesting is that the storage capacity you can achieve with hydrogen based completely dwarfs anything you can achieve with batteries, hydro storage or practically anything else at the moment. The round trip efficiency is currently between 30-40 %, it can realistically be increased to 50% in the near future. If you recover the stored energy by burning the hydrogen in in a combined cycle gas power plant the efficiencies is as high as 60%.
I get why they are not worried about Disney, I'm not subscribing to Disney's service just to see their movies and Amazon's Prime Video, from what I have seen of it is mostly a pile of junk with handful of notable exceptions. Fortnight I'm not really interested in but many other people are so I can see how they would be a valid concern.
It you expected it, it's not much of a discovery, is it?
So why ask "Why are scientists are constantly surprised by what they discover? Seems like a silly question to me, surprise kind of goes with the territory if you do science. If you want absolute certainty go and become a born-again Christian.
The Scientests aren't actually surprised It's the Reporters writing the news stories that are surprised
No, scientists do not operate in absolute certainty of what they will discover, they are regularly surprised by what they discover. It is the religionists who have absolute certainty because they are the only ones I have met that claim they can explain everything in the universe, ... with a collection of ancient religious texts and the fickle opinions of their clergy.
Looks like this place is fucked either way.
No, it looks like they are only fucked if their hit rate goes down or if they start questioning the wisdom of the 'suggestions' their corporate overlords have on what topics they should concentrate their writing on and what slant their writing should have. It's pretty much the same as various parts of the Murdoch media like, say .... Fox News for example. Except I expect entities like the Huffington Post to be much more subtle about it. Fox News is, in the best of gutter press news reporting tradition, a bit of a shotgun blast to the face while outfits like the Huffington post are more refined, like a rifle.
These people are basement dwelling losers. It is right and proper that they are offended by mere criticism of a comic book adaptation.
No that can't be, all the basement dwellers are far to busy posting angry and.paranoid rants about Apple and Microsoft on Slashdot.
Huffpost is not long for this world. They are owned by AOL/Verizon. Verizon gives companies 2-3 years to 'prove themselves'. Then they come in and tear shit up if it is not 'performing'. There is no way huffingtonpost is performing. Dialup is performing better from what I remember.
Media outlets owned by corporations or other special interest groups operate by different rules than other companies. The way they perform is measured by how many people they reach because that translates directly into the ability to shape public opionin which has all kinds of benefits for the owner of the outlet other that what nickels and dimes they earn off of it. If a media outlet turns a profit that is only gravy.
Nice numbers, now can Netflix please pick up the fourth season 'Colony' which got axed by the bean counters at USA Network this summer? It was just starting to get really interesting.
That's the first time I've heard anyone make the accusation that state borders are gerrymandered. And I rather doubt that was actually your intent.
Quick civics lesson: Virtually all electors cast their vote based on who won the popular vote in their state. Any gerrymandering (redrawing of voting boundaries) would require redrawing interstate borders - which I don't believe has ever happened to a state after it has joined the union.
Now, the electoral college *is* set up so that each state gets as many electoral votes as it has congressional representatives, which does mean that some citizen's vote counts for more than others, the same way some citizens get more congressional representation, since states get two senators each, regardless of population. And it was set up that way for a reason - so that the small, densely-populated states couldn't just ignore the large rural ones. Without that, the large rural states would have had little incentive to join the nation in the first place. Who would want to be the farming-bitch for the cities, with little political power?
We could change the laws for how states get federal representation - but to do so we'd need a constitutional amendment to be ratified by all those states that would be delegated to political bitch status - and they'd have to be stupid to support that.
So basically there is no justice in distributing electoral college delegates in proportion to population so that the results of elections actually reflect the way most people voted or even dump that antiquated 'Electoral College' that makes the USA the laughingstocks of the entire democratic world. However, there is oodles and oodles of justice in the inhabitants of a few underpopulated tiny states shoving their ultra conservative values, homophobia, racism and christian fundamentalist fanaticism down the throats of much larger populations who have no interest in being being bible thumped in a christian conservative utopia? The whole idea behind democracy in all of its forms tends to be that the majority rules. Only in the US is there an abstraction layer that ensures that a small rural elite gets to override the votes of the majority of the population. Sooner or later the constitution will be changed an these red states will become 'political bitches' as you put it because, with the Republicans cuddling up to the ultra right wing fringe and pinning it's hopes on white pensioners and angry white racists, demographics are not working in their favour and sooner or later they won't even be able to gerrymander, voter intimidate, voter disenfranchise and cheat their way out of the corner they have painted themselves into.
No, there just aren't enough idiots in US to elect Trump, so significant number of non-idiots voted for him. You need to understand why non-idiots voted for him instead of just calling them idiots or this will happen again.
There weren't even enough non-idiots to elect Trump since he never got the majority of the popular vote. It took an archaic gerrymandered assembly know as the 'Electoral College', which no other nation has ever seen enough sense to copy, to make Trump president.
I guess you missed the part about where the guys doing the faking failed in their attempt? If you can't do the job, why should you get paid?
That is the risk you take in business. These guys were still due money for the work they did. Or do you think that when Ford Motors designs a car that flops on the market that Ford Motors then doesn't have to pay the engineers that did the work or the workers who assembled the things or the contractors who supplied the parts?
Those polls that are completely and utterly useless in pretty much every respect? Wake me up when something newsworthy happens.
Find solace in the fact that after these guys faked the polls for them Trump/Cohen cheated them out of their payment which is standard Trump Organisation practice. The lesson here is, never do business with anybody whose business practices you haven't thoroughly researched.
Trump isn't taking a "hardline" stance on China, Trump is a bullshitter pretending to act hard hoping China will blink first. China plays the long game and will easily, easily outlast that nitwit's attention span. Plus, Trump is prison bound.
So there's that.
Is that his strategy? I always figured his strategy was to get in China's face until a Chinese state bank suddenly invests a ton of cash into one of his ventures, at which point he would cave in to China on something China wants like he did over ZTE after the Chinese state suddenly loaned his developers $500 million to build his Lido city project. Transactional foreign policy ... the Trump presidency is beginning to remind me of the Roman Republic during the Jugurthine war: Rome is a city for sale and doomed to destruction if it ever finds a buyer.
However I fear it may have little effect, since a lot of people bring their own sunscreen from elsewhere. But you may as well try.
A lot more people than you think manage to forget or simply lose their sunscreen.
Yup, and the stuff also expires and becomes unusable after a while so a very significant number of visitors are likely to buy their sunscreen locally.
Political correctness is the godless religious offshoot of the godless religion of communism. By supporting the lie of political correctness, the left makes it about who the biggest liar is. Since the right is a bigger liar, it wins and we numbly drift into calamity.
Political correctness exists on both flanks of the political spectrum, there is such a thing as right-wing political correctness.
What about pesticides and other toxins as well? We're dumping this shit into our environment and some of it is persistent. Agriculture is one thing, but whenever I see a house with a perfect, green lawn, I want to smack the owners in the face.
The EU issued a blanket ban all neonicotinoids last year. This is the stuff that is largely responsible a 75%-85% collapse of the insect population in the EU zone. I don't know how much those are used in Puerto Rico but neonicotinoids are certainly capable of causing a 70% plus reduction in insect populations so I won't be crying any rivers if this stuff gets banned elsewhere too. It's just one of many toxic substances that I don't want in my food.
Lest we forget this was forced upon them by DieselGate.
So what? At least they are doing it. The more important question is: Will Trump do his utmost to prevent this being that he hates German car companies and considers elections unpatriotic, or will he take credit for it? Maybe he'll be so conflicted his brain will panic and reboot?
Problem is that the greater the speed in an accident the more likely someone is to be seriously injured or killed. Further the *PUBLIC* roads are just that a shared public resource.
Your rights to go as fast as you want stop at my nose.
Get back to me when you are a happy for killing someone in an accident to be treated as murder.
In the meantime speeding is a crime, and speed cameras only punish those who choose to recklessly endanger other people for their convenience and/or pleasure.
I would share your view (about the existence of speed limits anyway, if not of cameras) if speed limits in the US were reasonable, and if enforcement were uniform.
Instead, the reality (and everyone knows it) is that speed limits are set too low, and therefore almost everybody speeds an "acceptable" amount, except for a few antisocial types who think they are doing good by driving under the limit but who actually create danger through the high speed differentials that they create.
The problem goes beyond a few 'aristocrats'. There are several neighbourhoods in the city I live in that are used by commuters to bypass massive congestions during business hours. These residential streets literally have a speed bump every 80-100m because otherwise kids, pedestrians and residents getting in and out of their car would be mown down and vehicles backing out of drive ways would get T-boned on a regular basis by people driving at highway speeds through residential areas. The same basically applies to highways. I have zero sympathy for some speed demon who kills himself by wrapping his car around a bridge pylon at 190 km/h, I do very much care about the family of 5 whose plans for the day did not include having the tangled wreck of that asshole's car come flying through their front windshield after it bounced off the bridge pylon. I've seen some amazing traffic accidents in my time, including a Porsche that managed to fly across the left hand lane, across the central separator island and into oncoming traffic (don't ask me how he did that, I drove past the scene after it happened) and a Toyota Landcruiser that somehow managed to drive up a a vertical concrete bridge pylon until it ended up sitting on it's back door on the ground and it's nose pointing skyward. Speed limits are there for a reason.
Speed cameras are a dishonest and regressive way to tax the population. Don't let local politicians sell you on BS that it is for traffic calming and safety.
They have a point and they also don't have a point. There are speed camera firms that actually deliver presentations to municipal politicians on how they can 'maximise revenue' from speed cameras, I have seen camera footage taken by TV journalists who mounted a sting operation at a major speed camera exhibition in Europe. Those cameras these yellow vested hooligans can knock down for all I care. However, there is a street in my town where there are two schools and a communal home for blind people, the max speed is 30km/h and people used to regularly blast through there at 70-80km/h until some f**ktard ran over a 3rd grader and they set up a bunch of speed average cameras on that street. Alluvasudden everybody drives through there at 30 km/h, I wonder why? ... could it be that people only ever learn through large amounts of money disappearing from their wallet? Those camera serves a very useful purpose because the world is full of self absorbed asshats who seem to consider themselves to be on a holy mission from god to never drive slower than the number written on the maximum speed signs and that the red traffic lights don't apply to them.
Which is bullshit. WHY does the location even matter if you are paying per stream???
i.e. If I travel outside the country I get hit by their bullshit geo-IP blocking. I'm *paying* for the fucking service but can't use it -- all because I'm out of the country??? WTF! (Yes, I know its because of the greed of the Content Creators who license their IP and not technically Netflix's fault but this is still bullshit.)
All these shenanigans do is just drive people to use proxies.
Blocked? When I travel outside my country I get the Netflix selection available under the licensing contracts for the country I'm currently in. The main thing that would worry me with this new AI based sharing detector is that it would malfunction as badly as the one built into Microsoft products which constantly nags me to enter the MS subscription password, seemingly every time I cross a border.
TFA made no claims about having proven that medieval women were literate. It has been well documented that women were literate since very ancient times. The literacy issue is a straw man you created.
"Researcher Christina Warinner said this finding from the 11th century was unprecedented in showing more women were literate, educated and encouraged to read at that time."
This has been a well known fact for centuries, the whole point of TFA and the significance of the discovery is actually presented in TFS which states: "The researchers said this challenged long-held beliefs that women had played little role in the European Middle Ages in producing literary and written texts which came largely from religious institutions,"
Also, I have read period documents written by clergy involved in visitations during the Middle Ages and these people took their work really seriously. Your completely unsubstantiated claim they all were corrupt is unfair.
Just as well that I didn't claim that, then. I implied that coverage was patchy.
You dismissed my argument with the rather broad claim that most if not all clergy were universally corrupt and open to bribery: And of course they were 100% uncorruptable and diligent, like all clergy everywhere are renowned as being. ... which is complete bull crap.
Ecclesiastical corruption did happen but it also regularly led to reform movements within the church and demands for reform among the civilian population. The biggest manifestation of this being the Protestant reformation.
Yet the reformation came out of frustration at the lack of reform over the previous 200 years. This is the same as the Latin point earlier - there was a revolt because there was a need for it. You're trying to have it both ways/
No you made the sweeping claim that all clergy everywhere is 100% corruptible And of course they were 100% uncorruptable and diligent, like all clergy everywhere are renowned as being. ... which is demonstrably a boldfaced lie. All I did was point out that the reformation of the 16th century was started by reform oriented clergy and supported by reform oriented civilians. The protestant reformation was not by any stretch of the imagination the only large scale reform in church history. There was a whole string of reform movements over the last 1000 yars.
Uhhh... no. The church regularly cracked down on education and what they called ‘feral latin’ among the clergy. Bishops and commissions of scholarly monks conducted regular visitations in parishes to judge and report the state of affairs.
They had to crack down on it because it existed. And of course they were 100% uncorruptable and diligent, like all clergy everywhere are renowned as being.
Plus, lapis lazuli was imported from Afghanistan and was at times more valuable than gold so this woman was an illustrator of some very high end texts. What is important about this discovery is more than anything else that it constitutes proof of the fact that women, presumably nuns, as well as monks were involved in the production of the most splendid manuscripts of the time because nobody except a first rate illustrator would have something as obscenely expensive as lapis lazuli in their dental plaque.
Sure. None of which has any bearing on literacy.
It has a bearing on what TFA is about, I.e. that women were involved in the creation of some of the most exclusive illustrated manuscripts of the period, real masretmaster pieces like the Codex Aureus made for the emperor himself. When the radiator grill costs its weight in gold and the car the the grill is going into costs the yearly revenue of a whole county you do not let just any hack handle the assembly work. TFA made no claims about having proven that medieval women were literate. It has been well documented that women were literate since very ancient times. The literacy issue is a straw man you created. Also, I have read period documents written by clergy involved in visitations during the Middle Ages and these people took their work really seriously. Your completely unsubstantiated claim they all were corrupt is unfair. Ecclesiastical corruption did happen but it also regularly led to reform movements within the church and demands for reform among the civilian population. The biggest manifestation of this being the Protestant reformation.
I don't see why this implies literacy or even real education - many male monks were barely able to do more than copy what was in front of them and lots of priests in non-Italian countries could read out texts to their congregations without actually understanding Latin.
Manuscripts were produced in production lines - does someone assembling radiator grills for Ford know how to design a car?
Uhhh... no. The church regularly cracked down on education and what they called ‘feral latin’ among the clergy. Bishops and commissions of scholarly monks conducted regular visitations in parishes to judge and report the state of affairs. Plus, lapis lazuli was imported from Afghanistan and was at times more valuable than gold so this woman was an illustrator of some very high end texts. What is important about this discovery is more than anything else that it constitutes proof of the fact that women, presumably nuns, as well as monks were involved in the production of the most splendid manuscripts of the time because nobody except a first rate illustrator would have something as obscenely expensive as lapis lazuli in their dental plaque.