It was also too damned slow. Maybe they figured out that computers need to be a lot faster before it will function on the lowest common denominator machines, and will release it under another name in a few years.
Well, when I graduated from med school, I lost my right to collective bargaining. I don't think there's anyone walking around talking about how physicians are direly oppressed members of the proletariat.
What would you consider to be someone who doesn't need a union? All but the most junior teachers enjoy considerable independence and authority in how they conduct their classes - considerably more than the average shift manager at McDonald's. Yet the latter is part of "management" while the former is not.
There's a reason I said "reasonably certain". The logic works either way: if one set of teachers is more valuable than another, they should be paid more. The union is more interested in having merit and inherent value excluded from the compensation system.
I'm not sure how B follows A in that comment, but if you'd like my opinion: voluntary unionism is fine, closed shops aren't, and the laws that let unions deduct every part of the dues except "political activities" from every worker's paycheck even if that worker isn't part of the union are wrong.
If the test is a good one, "teaching to the test" is great. I don't care if the average public school graduate has read Thoreau; I care if they can read. I don't care if they can do calculus; I care if they can balance a checking account. These are easily testable skills.
Should it be illegal for cartels to set commodity prices?
That is illegal; there's a reason OPEC meetings aren't held in New York, and that LCD makers were fined for collusion (like here; that's from 2008, or here, for the new suit by the state of New York)
It's amazing how free market purists suddenly don't trust the free market when it comes to workers' pay.
I'm not aware of any "free market purists" who think cartels are a good thing. After all, teachers aren't barely-literate manual laborers; they have college degrees - shouldn't they be able to negotiate a salary on their own? If there were a market in teacher pay, for example, I'm reasonably certain that a high school physics teacher would make a lot more than a kindergarten teacher. Instead, in most public systems, pay is determined by seniority and box-checking. (Got a master's degree? Check. Gone to summer course X? Check. Collect for each box checked.)
Actually, it doesn't specify exactly what a "vehicle" is - just that the data comes from the AAR's Railroad Facts 2009, and I'm not paying $20 to find out. Presumably they mean per-car, as the values are ridiculously low otherwise (e.g., only about 40 people on a transit train). And per-car energy use should scale more or less linearly (so long as you don't need to add another locomotive). People don't weigh much compared to the car itself.
I invite you to investigate Table 2-12 of the Dept of Energy Transportation Energy Data Book (chapter 2, page 14). An average intercity train - 23.7 passengers/car - achieves efficiency of 2398 BTU/passenger-mile. A "personal truck" - that's an SUV - gets 6699 BTU/vehicle-mile. Now, with only two occupants, that's about 3350 BTU/passenger-mile. Not so efficient around town. But with four people in it, it consumes 1674.75 BTU/passenger-mile. Achieving equivalent BTU/passenger-mile would require 40.7 passengers per train car. Now, where's your bullshit?
I know you're trolling, but sometimes I can't resist.
Rail is the most efficient form of long-distance travel other than water, assuming that there is no value accorded to speed of transport. If you're a steel mill, or a power plant, or any of a thousand other industrial processes that do not concern themselves with transit time, then rail is incredibly efficient and logical. After all, it's not as though coal goes bad if it takes a week to get to you. If you're a dairy producer, the rules are rather different.
No, because it takes a lot longer to load a train with cars (and to empty the cars off the train) than it does to fly and then rent a car when you get there.
An SUV with 1 driver and 3 passengers is pretty close, with the advantage that it goes exactly where you want it to go when you get to your destination.
SSRI = selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. Not an antagonist; it increases available serotonin by preventing the presynaptic neuron from reabsorbing serotonin released into the synapse.
Now, methylphenidate, like the rest of the amphetamines, has a slightly different mechanism of action. It has multiple effects, spread out among the catecholamines (not just dopamine), which are quite beautifully presented here. Dopamine and norepinephrine activity are increased by amphetamines, through multiple presynaptic and postsynaptic effects. An antagonist would have decreased activity by competing for the dopaminergic or noradrenergic receptor.
For those wondering about stimulant vs depressant, consider alcohol. It is undeniably a depressant at the cellular level; however, when taken in relatively small quantities, some people become excited, more verbal, more outgoing. Why? Because it slows down the inhibitory systems in the brain first, producing a loss of inhibitions. Amphetamines, when taken in relatively small doses, can produce focus rather than hyperactivity by improving the executive function of the brain.
Let me guess, you're the guy who, when asked if he'd like chicken or steak, says "Yes"? There's no reference - none at all - to the visually deficient.
As for economic destruction, check out "deadweight loss" and "broken windows fallacy" for reasons why government spending is not a panacea. Increased IT spending based on regulatory requirements necessarily means that the money that would have been spent on something that would build the core business is used to deal with regulation instead. Now, this might have sufficient societal benefit to be worth it, or it might not - but you have to look at costs, too.
These were fun games, and it was really cool to be able to interact with objects in a 3D environment that was being generated on the fly, but modern games look and react better. You just happened to be there when we moved from side scrollers to 3D worlds, and it's like the first girl you ever kissed: there's nothing really that special about her, except to you.
Somebody who likes driving new cars. Lots of cars are POSs that fall apart after the warranty expires. Not to say that new cars don't fall apart, but when they do it's someone else's problem. Plus, if you don't know how to work on cars, and especially if you don't know how to maintain their interiors, an older car looks... old. It's frankly amazed me what even $1000 applied to the interior of a car will do.
Hydrogen is just a terrible storage medium. Methanol, ethanol, natural gas, and propane are all better behaved substances that would require minimal modifications to existing designs in order to work efficiently.
Of course, nobody who needs a quality item buys it at Wal-Mart. What the Wal haters miss is that the cheap stuff they sell lets people buy things they otherwise could never afford. I've got a food processor from Wal-Mart. It's not very good - the cheapest Cuisinart is more powerful, easier to clean, and can run longer without overheating - but it only cost me $30, and for that $30 I realized that I don't use a food processor often enough to bother with owning one. Saved me over $200.
BTW, if you want good stuff cheap, go to garage sales in nice neighborhoods. You'll make out like a bandit and get some seriously high-quality stuff. I've seen $1500 suits for $20.
Slashdot Mirror
It was also too damned slow. Maybe they figured out that computers need to be a lot faster before it will function on the lowest common denominator machines, and will release it under another name in a few years.
Also, it was really slow.
Well, when I graduated from med school, I lost my right to collective bargaining. I don't think there's anyone walking around talking about how physicians are direly oppressed members of the proletariat.
What would you consider to be someone who doesn't need a union? All but the most junior teachers enjoy considerable independence and authority in how they conduct their classes - considerably more than the average shift manager at McDonald's. Yet the latter is part of "management" while the former is not.
There's a reason I said "reasonably certain". The logic works either way: if one set of teachers is more valuable than another, they should be paid more. The union is more interested in having merit and inherent value excluded from the compensation system.
I'm not sure how B follows A in that comment, but if you'd like my opinion: voluntary unionism is fine, closed shops aren't, and the laws that let unions deduct every part of the dues except "political activities" from every worker's paycheck even if that worker isn't part of the union are wrong.
If the test is a good one, "teaching to the test" is great. I don't care if the average public school graduate has read Thoreau; I care if they can read. I don't care if they can do calculus; I care if they can balance a checking account. These are easily testable skills.
Should it be illegal for cartels to set commodity prices?
That is illegal; there's a reason OPEC meetings aren't held in New York, and that LCD makers were fined for collusion (like here; that's from 2008, or here, for the new suit by the state of New York)
It's amazing how free market purists suddenly don't trust the free market when it comes to workers' pay.
I'm not aware of any "free market purists" who think cartels are a good thing. After all, teachers aren't barely-literate manual laborers; they have college degrees - shouldn't they be able to negotiate a salary on their own? If there were a market in teacher pay, for example, I'm reasonably certain that a high school physics teacher would make a lot more than a kindergarten teacher. Instead, in most public systems, pay is determined by seniority and box-checking. (Got a master's degree? Check. Gone to summer course X? Check. Collect for each box checked.)
Actually, it doesn't specify exactly what a "vehicle" is - just that the data comes from the AAR's Railroad Facts 2009, and I'm not paying $20 to find out. Presumably they mean per-car, as the values are ridiculously low otherwise (e.g., only about 40 people on a transit train). And per-car energy use should scale more or less linearly (so long as you don't need to add another locomotive). People don't weigh much compared to the car itself.
I invite you to investigate Table 2-12 of the Dept of Energy Transportation Energy Data Book (chapter 2, page 14). An average intercity train - 23.7 passengers/car - achieves efficiency of 2398 BTU/passenger-mile. A "personal truck" - that's an SUV - gets 6699 BTU/vehicle-mile. Now, with only two occupants, that's about 3350 BTU/passenger-mile. Not so efficient around town. But with four people in it, it consumes 1674.75 BTU/passenger-mile. Achieving equivalent BTU/passenger-mile would require 40.7 passengers per train car. Now, where's your bullshit?
When I was a kid, my parents, my sister, and I all traveled together. Didn't your family do the same? Quit thinking like a single adult.
My troll parent was talking about highly efficient bulk traffic, not HSR.
I know you're trolling, but sometimes I can't resist.
Rail is the most efficient form of long-distance travel other than water, assuming that there is no value accorded to speed of transport. If you're a steel mill, or a power plant, or any of a thousand other industrial processes that do not concern themselves with transit time, then rail is incredibly efficient and logical. After all, it's not as though coal goes bad if it takes a week to get to you. If you're a dairy producer, the rules are rather different.
No, because it takes a lot longer to load a train with cars (and to empty the cars off the train) than it does to fly and then rent a car when you get there.
An SUV with 1 driver and 3 passengers is pretty close, with the advantage that it goes exactly where you want it to go when you get to your destination.
Wrong.
SSRI = selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. Not an antagonist; it increases available serotonin by preventing the presynaptic neuron from reabsorbing serotonin released into the synapse.
Now, methylphenidate, like the rest of the amphetamines, has a slightly different mechanism of action. It has multiple effects, spread out among the catecholamines (not just dopamine), which are quite beautifully presented here. Dopamine and norepinephrine activity are increased by amphetamines, through multiple presynaptic and postsynaptic effects. An antagonist would have decreased activity by competing for the dopaminergic or noradrenergic receptor.
For those wondering about stimulant vs depressant, consider alcohol. It is undeniably a depressant at the cellular level; however, when taken in relatively small quantities, some people become excited, more verbal, more outgoing. Why? Because it slows down the inhibitory systems in the brain first, producing a loss of inhibitions. Amphetamines, when taken in relatively small doses, can produce focus rather than hyperactivity by improving the executive function of the brain.
Petrochemical plants can, in theory, produce absolute ethanol without a dehydration step. Not merely potable, but chemically pure!
Let me guess, you're the guy who, when asked if he'd like chicken or steak, says "Yes"? There's no reference - none at all - to the visually deficient.
As for economic destruction, check out "deadweight loss" and "broken windows fallacy" for reasons why government spending is not a panacea. Increased IT spending based on regulatory requirements necessarily means that the money that would have been spent on something that would build the core business is used to deal with regulation instead. Now, this might have sufficient societal benefit to be worth it, or it might not - but you have to look at costs, too.
Cool, thanks for the tip.
Wake me up when he puts out the one where Han shoots first.
I always wondered why you guys paid such high prices for electronics. Now I know. Wow.
A 2010 Toyota Camry gets 268 hp from a V6 engine while still getting 20 mpg around town. Let's see a 1982 model do that.
These were fun games, and it was really cool to be able to interact with objects in a 3D environment that was being generated on the fly, but modern games look and react better. You just happened to be there when we moved from side scrollers to 3D worlds, and it's like the first girl you ever kissed: there's nothing really that special about her, except to you.
What kind of moron only keeps a car 5 years?
Somebody who likes driving new cars. Lots of cars are POSs that fall apart after the warranty expires. Not to say that new cars don't fall apart, but when they do it's someone else's problem. Plus, if you don't know how to work on cars, and especially if you don't know how to maintain their interiors, an older car looks... old. It's frankly amazed me what even $1000 applied to the interior of a car will do.
Hydrogen is just a terrible storage medium. Methanol, ethanol, natural gas, and propane are all better behaved substances that would require minimal modifications to existing designs in order to work efficiently.
Of course, nobody who needs a quality item buys it at Wal-Mart. What the Wal haters miss is that the cheap stuff they sell lets people buy things they otherwise could never afford. I've got a food processor from Wal-Mart. It's not very good - the cheapest Cuisinart is more powerful, easier to clean, and can run longer without overheating - but it only cost me $30, and for that $30 I realized that I don't use a food processor often enough to bother with owning one. Saved me over $200.
BTW, if you want good stuff cheap, go to garage sales in nice neighborhoods. You'll make out like a bandit and get some seriously high-quality stuff. I've seen $1500 suits for $20.