You have to be brain dead, but on life support machines before the organs are taken. Most transplant centers will only take a few minutes of CPR before they reject a potentail organ.
If you can prove that carbon creates externalities, and you can find a very good estimate for the value of those externalities, then you can impliment a Pigovian tax which would be economically efficient (which is what free marketers usually get excited about).
Modern military snipers use.50 cal and other magnum hunting round derived rounds to reach 1000+ meters. You need a long heavy bullet to ensure accuracy and energy retention as you get close to 1 mile. Police snipers usually use fairly light rifles (.223 to.308) because their shooting is normally rooftop to 1-2 buildings over and it's more important to be able to place a second shot quickly rather than be able to hit a target at 1000+ meters.
Our my documents are networked (with something like roaming profiles) and individual. If I log on to any networked computer my My Documents folder and Desktop are sync'd. All of the remainder of C is write only administrator.
Fractional reserve banking is used in every nation's banks in the world. Capital is just too rare otherwise. Think of the difference between muxed signals vs unshared signals. Yes there's a real risk of very catestrophic problems, but since it's development every society that learned of it has decided to take that risk (even under the gold standard banking was still fractional reserve).
Many stretch deep into the ground, including the 230-foot-long moving stairs at Wheaton, the longest escalator in the Western Hemisphere. To reduce accidents, Metro keeps the speed of its escalators relatively slow -- 90 feet a minute, compared with the 120 [but up to 150] feet a minute that is typical of escalators at shopping malls, said Fred Goodine, Metro's assistant general manager for system safety and risk protection.
That means that riding the Wheaton escalator can take three minutes; and the Dupont Circle Metro's 2 minutes and 10 seconds. The escalator at Woodley Park Zoo/Adams Morgan, a favorite of tourists with small children, clocks in at 2 minutes and 20 seconds. From a Washington Post article We have elevators (and shuttles when they're broken, which is common). It's a decision, but the decision is because of the slope, walking is due to the length. By walking you can easily cut that 2 minutes in half. That can the difference between making the next train which can be 5-10 minutes depending on whether it's rush hour or off times.
As it turns out walking is pretty dangerous. As a result many other escalator systems boost speeds above the ones listed above in an effort to discourage walking. So Metro's policy is fairly counter-productive.
Washington DC's metro has an informal but strongly enforced walk on the left, stand on the right policy, but because of the slope and length of their escalators, they run slower than average. If you come here and stand, people will swear at you, and most of them will bump you when they pass.
With Cox (at least a year or two ago), it would also pick up what ever someone had requested on demand, if you rescanned while the on demand stream was active.
I understand your point, and yes, capitalism is an exceedingly efficient allocation of resources, but to say that Communism can't work at even the smallest levels is easily disproven by the collectivism of many families.
Allocating a commons can be done in many ways, ownership isn't the only one that can improve results. Swiss meadows are normally the object lesson used by economists, but there are other agreements that aren't capitalist in nature that work.
Collectivism works when one's ties to the community outweigh their self interest, that normally happens only in exctended families, or in religious groups. Kibbutz were very successful and very communistic (children were raised in groups, and the clothes on your back were owned in common), but only as long as everyone in the group agreed the success of the group was preferrable to the success of the individual. It helped that they were surrounded by generally hostile people, which made individual prospects pretty dire.
I grew up in an area that did a lot of farming. I don't remember a single farmer planting two different crops in the same field, at the same time. I also don't remember any farms that sprayed everything all at once, usually they either took a tractor around with a sprayer or had a crop duster do it. In both cases, they could do a 20 ft wide strip at best.
It was very common though for a farmer to have two different crops growing in two different fields, and to spray two different chemicals on the fields. Also round up doesn't have any lasting effects, I've sprayed it all over lots of weeds, but they keep growing back every spring.
Kibbutz seem like a pretty good example of free choice communism. Even they have slowly ebbed towards corporations over the last few years (although they did seem to work pretty well for a generation or so).
I think communisum can work, but it's optimum size is vastly smaller than a nation (something more like a village is probably all that can be operated before corruption and self-interested decisions become too costly).
I'd like to see one social democracy survive through a population boom, stabilization, and decline before we call them successes. Thus far the odds look good that their grand experiments will end up transfering wealth from one generation to another.
Sure the west stopped it's spread, but Communism failed in almost all the nations it was tried (except a couple small ones) because it corrupted from the inside. Successful communism works only when there are majorly strong ties to the community, that overcome the normal selfish desire everyone has. Otherwise communism becomes little removed from capitalism except political power replaces money as the currency.
Fine so, edit the original statement with however light moves at the same velocity, as long as it is travelling through the same stuff. You've proved that I don't have mastery of optics (didn't like it then or now) but not given much evidence that even challenging subjects are not able to be explained to a child.
Lenses bend light (bending light is very easy to show with a glass, water, and a spoon). Stars twinkle because they're winking at you (if you really need that refer to the same glass and spoon and explain to them that the air surrounding earth has a similar (but smaller effect). Kids rarely want to know all the math nor the nuance behind a principle, but the love to see examples.
I can dig that, but from a practical standpoint it doesn't matter who is right, just what we end up doing. It's a tough choice, and I doubt we'll have enough info to make a good decision about which is a better choice for at least a few more years of study (on both sides, it's possible that we can make bigger cuts in CO2 without losing as much economy as is currently thought).
Why is specialization bad? One doesn't need to know how every component in my car works to drive it (I need much more knowledge to fix and maintain it) nor does one need to understand the Bernoulli principle to enjoy riding in an airplane (nor spell it happily). If the automated tools are good enough not to create errors frequently enough that one needs to have much of an understanding of what they're doing to be able to make a web page.
Special relativity--Take child in the car, and have them move their head back to watch something stationary. Explain that by moving your head back it was easier to focus on the object because all motion depends on how you observe it. As your speed increases, the way you look at all kinds of things like time don't continue in the ways we commonly think of them. However, all light always moves at the same speed. Several things like time, mass (how much stuff there is), and energy all change when they approach the speed of light.
Maybe not all 6-year olds, but any bright one should be able to understand that.
The public sides against GW because the proposed solution is to make everyone quite a bit poorer for a threat that won't impact them for 100-300 or more years. Ceasing to use energy means the economy must shrink, Europe's borrowing hasn't changed that even if it delayed it somewhat. If you want to make them choose to become 10-30% poorer (and in a manner that shifts the remaining wealth to others), you had better provide a damn good reason, and losing some biodiversity doesn't come close to that.
If you want to change something, it's the responsibility of those who agitate to explain their desire. To have any success, those who must change need to understand why the change would be beneficial (at least for everyone in total, if not them personally).
I agree, after entering a corner at a little too high a speed for my not race tuned car, I learned to give myself a little cool down time from GTR/Forza before driving.
Slashdot Mirror
We still have troops in every nation that we defeated post WW1. Why would Iraq be any different, especially given all the oil that's there?
I loved that game, and am sad it stopped shipping with windows after 95. Thanks for the wiki link as they have a download.
You have to be brain dead, but on life support machines before the organs are taken. Most transplant centers will only take a few minutes of CPR before they reject a potentail organ.
I love how slug lines show the lengths that middle class Americans will go not to ride a bus.
Of course, my DC area commute is by metro and not by bus either.
If you can prove that carbon creates externalities, and you can find a very good estimate for the value of those externalities, then you can impliment a Pigovian tax which would be economically efficient (which is what free marketers usually get excited about).
Modern military snipers use .50 cal and other magnum hunting round derived rounds to reach 1000+ meters. You need a long heavy bullet to ensure accuracy and energy retention as you get close to 1 mile. Police snipers usually use fairly light rifles (.223 to .308) because their shooting is normally rooftop to 1-2 buildings over and it's more important to be able to place a second shot quickly rather than be able to hit a target at 1000+ meters.
Our my documents are networked (with something like roaming profiles) and individual. If I log on to any networked computer my My Documents folder and Desktop are sync'd. All of the remainder of C is write only administrator.
However, jumping in front of them with 5 of your best friends gives you a shot at becoming a rolling badass.
Fractional reserve banking is used in every nation's banks in the world. Capital is just too rare otherwise. Think of the difference between muxed signals vs unshared signals. Yes there's a real risk of very catestrophic problems, but since it's development every society that learned of it has decided to take that risk (even under the gold standard banking was still fractional reserve).
They are very long and steep.
Many stretch deep into the ground, including the 230-foot-long moving stairs at Wheaton, the longest escalator in the Western Hemisphere. To reduce accidents, Metro keeps the speed of its escalators relatively slow -- 90 feet a minute, compared with the 120 [but up to 150] feet a minute that is typical of escalators at shopping malls, said Fred Goodine, Metro's assistant general manager for system safety and risk protection.
That means that riding the Wheaton escalator can take three minutes; and the Dupont Circle Metro's 2 minutes and 10 seconds. The escalator at Woodley Park Zoo/Adams Morgan, a favorite of tourists with small children, clocks in at 2 minutes and 20 seconds.
From a Washington Post article
We have elevators (and shuttles when they're broken, which is common). It's a decision, but the decision is because of the slope, walking is due to the length. By walking you can easily cut that 2 minutes in half. That can the difference between making the next train which can be 5-10 minutes depending on whether it's rush hour or off times.
As it turns out walking is pretty dangerous. As a result many other escalator systems boost speeds above the ones listed above in an effort to discourage walking. So Metro's policy is fairly counter-productive.
Washington DC's metro has an informal but strongly enforced walk on the left, stand on the right policy, but because of the slope and length of their escalators, they run slower than average. If you come here and stand, people will swear at you, and most of them will bump you when they pass.
With Cox (at least a year or two ago), it would also pick up what ever someone had requested on demand, if you rescanned while the on demand stream was active.
I understand your point, and yes, capitalism is an exceedingly efficient allocation of resources, but to say that Communism can't work at even the smallest levels is easily disproven by the collectivism of many families.
Allocating a commons can be done in many ways, ownership isn't the only one that can improve results. Swiss meadows are normally the object lesson used by economists, but there are other agreements that aren't capitalist in nature that work.
Collectivism works when one's ties to the community outweigh their self interest, that normally happens only in exctended families, or in religious groups. Kibbutz were very successful and very communistic (children were raised in groups, and the clothes on your back were owned in common), but only as long as everyone in the group agreed the success of the group was preferrable to the success of the individual. It helped that they were surrounded by generally hostile people, which made individual prospects pretty dire.
Yep, we'll go back to having the streets run with shit.
I grew up in an area that did a lot of farming. I don't remember a single farmer planting two different crops in the same field, at the same time. I also don't remember any farms that sprayed everything all at once, usually they either took a tractor around with a sprayer or had a crop duster do it. In both cases, they could do a 20 ft wide strip at best.
It was very common though for a farmer to have two different crops growing in two different fields, and to spray two different chemicals on the fields. Also round up doesn't have any lasting effects, I've sprayed it all over lots of weeds, but they keep growing back every spring.
Kibbutz seem like a pretty good example of free choice communism. Even they have slowly ebbed towards corporations over the last few years (although they did seem to work pretty well for a generation or so).
I think communisum can work, but it's optimum size is vastly smaller than a nation (something more like a village is probably all that can be operated before corruption and self-interested decisions become too costly).
I'd like to see one social democracy survive through a population boom, stabilization, and decline before we call them successes. Thus far the odds look good that their grand experiments will end up transfering wealth from one generation to another.
Sure the west stopped it's spread, but Communism failed in almost all the nations it was tried (except a couple small ones) because it corrupted from the inside. Successful communism works only when there are majorly strong ties to the community, that overcome the normal selfish desire everyone has. Otherwise communism becomes little removed from capitalism except political power replaces money as the currency.
Fine so, edit the original statement with however light moves at the same velocity, as long as it is travelling through the same stuff. You've proved that I don't have mastery of optics (didn't like it then or now) but not given much evidence that even challenging subjects are not able to be explained to a child.
Lenses bend light (bending light is very easy to show with a glass, water, and a spoon). Stars twinkle because they're winking at you (if you really need that refer to the same glass and spoon and explain to them that the air surrounding earth has a similar (but smaller effect). Kids rarely want to know all the math nor the nuance behind a principle, but the love to see examples.
I can dig that, but from a practical standpoint it doesn't matter who is right, just what we end up doing. It's a tough choice, and I doubt we'll have enough info to make a good decision about which is a better choice for at least a few more years of study (on both sides, it's possible that we can make bigger cuts in CO2 without losing as much economy as is currently thought).
Why is specialization bad? One doesn't need to know how every component in my car works to drive it (I need much more knowledge to fix and maintain it) nor does one need to understand the Bernoulli principle to enjoy riding in an airplane (nor spell it happily). If the automated tools are good enough not to create errors frequently enough that one needs to have much of an understanding of what they're doing to be able to make a web page.
Special relativity--Take child in the car, and have them move their head back to watch something stationary. Explain that by moving your head back it was easier to focus on the object because all motion depends on how you observe it. As your speed increases, the way you look at all kinds of things like time don't continue in the ways we commonly think of them. However, all light always moves at the same speed. Several things like time, mass (how much stuff there is), and energy all change when they approach the speed of light.
Maybe not all 6-year olds, but any bright one should be able to understand that.
The public sides against GW because the proposed solution is to make everyone quite a bit poorer for a threat that won't impact them for 100-300 or more years. Ceasing to use energy means the economy must shrink, Europe's borrowing hasn't changed that even if it delayed it somewhat. If you want to make them choose to become 10-30% poorer (and in a manner that shifts the remaining wealth to others), you had better provide a damn good reason, and losing some biodiversity doesn't come close to that.
If you want to change something, it's the responsibility of those who agitate to explain their desire. To have any success, those who must change need to understand why the change would be beneficial (at least for everyone in total, if not them personally).
I agree, after entering a corner at a little too high a speed for my not race tuned car, I learned to give myself a little cool down time from GTR/Forza before driving.