Furthermore, Occam's Razor doesn't say that a simpler theory is a better theory, especially not unequivocally so, it merely says that a simpler theory is likely to be a better theory.
Actually, it says you shouldn't add unnecessary premises. Which means that the if the simpler theory is sufficient; it is absolutely, most definitely, and completely unequivocally the better theory. The common paraphrasing from (which most people got exposed to in "Contact") is useful, but less precise, and can cause the confusion you're dealing with.
Claiming that there is in fact a scientific basis for believing in the big bang versus young earth creationism (made to look like there was a big bang) is silly. There is a fairly sound philosophical basis, but no purely scientific basis at all.
Based only on your statements, I can safely conclude that you're a fairly smart person who simply doesn't "get" science. Don't worry, you're not alone.
The foundation of science is philosophy, most usually, metaphysics and epistemology. For you to discount a philosophical argument as non-scientific is completely backwards. The philosophical argument must precede the scientific argument, and Occam's Razor is an incredibly powerful tool for those wanting to critically examine scientific and pseudo-scientific statements. Read a little bit about Occam's Razor. Really, the Wikipedia article is that good.
Young earth creationism founders in it's completely indefensible philosophy, long before it can possibly be evaluated to see if it makes any falsifiable predictions (it doesn't) or even reaches any informative conclusions (it can't). It's quite simply non-science, and therefore should never be offered for consideration as any sort of equivalent to the Big Bang theory, or any other scientific theory regarding cosmology. To fail to stand up for real science when someone makes a statement like yours (that there's no way to tell...) is to abandon rational thought for the wolves. I won't do it.
Heh. Your bike sounds great for you. Let us know how you feel about those "Gas guzzling SUVs" when you have a family.
You should visit Copenhagen or Amsterdam or (any other bicycle friendly European city). When visiting Amsterdam, I saw at least three different bicycle designs for carrying two young children and several bags of groceries on a bicycle. When the kids get too big for the child seats, get them their own bikes.
On one occasion, I saw a very fit father, two young children, one infant, and two bags of groceries pedaling down the bicycle lane of the street. Seemed to be doing just fine, if a little sweaty.
Back here in the states, I find the sedan or minivan to be superior to the "Gas guzzling SUV" for transporting two or three kids and groceries. Though I have tried to get one of those bicycles over here, the shipping is completely prohibitive. I am intensely curious as to how practical the production Chevy Volt will be for a small family. I'm hoping it looks more like the Saturn Astra than the Saturn Sky, but at this point, who knows.
Who gives a fuck if the universe was created in a big bang, or if it was created ~5400 years ago to LOOK like it was created in the big bang.
Occam's Razor is a useful tool here. Since the second statement superficially resembles the first, but also requires the presence of an invisible all-powerful friend in the sky, the first is unequivocally a better theory.
There is no need to be arbitrary to decide between the two.
"Physics research" is getting more and more expensive because the simple ramifications of quantum mechanics and relativity have been worked out. What's left are complex permutations and refinements, with fewer and fewer returns from pure research.
I know it's Slashdot, but please RTFA. This article is basically complaining about the loss of materials science research, which is somewhat interdependent with high-energy physics, but not enormously so.
And in so doing converted herself from victim to attempted murderer, or at the very least assault with a deadly weapon.
In many states, using a legally carried pistol to enforce an arrest, including a non-police arrest, is completely legal.
It's only legal to shoot someone in self defense, if the person hadn't pulled a gun (or in some cases a knife) on her, then she can't legally shoot them.
You should stick to watching TV-lawyers duke it out on CSI. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. People who take the time to get CCW licenses are told exactly what the boundaries of legal use are and have to pass a fairly annoying written test to verify that knowledge.
He could have made this never happen by not violating a license agreement that he entered into it...[sic]
Actually, I took the time to read over the license agreement. Visual Studio Express contains the ability to add "add-ons" for additional functionality. No hacks needed, the API is available and documented. It also contains explicit permission to compile against the included libraries (which includes the add-on libraries) and to compile against libraries included in Windows and Office.
He went on to create an add-on that works against a provided (short) list of system libraries which adds functionality to Visual Studio, including the Express version.
MS claims he violated the EULA, but he doesn't see it, his lawyer doesn't see it, and I don't see it either (IANAL). Specifically what part of the license do you think he violated? I'm doing my best to not hate MS right now, but it's pretty clear that they are the assholes here.
You don't quite understand. I disconnected my TV to have more time for reading, hobbies, projects, etc. No antenna, no cable, no power. I love my house without a TV.
I still download BSG and watch it on my computer because it is so wonderfully entertaining. I also buy the DVD's because the team deserves some of my money for such a creative enterprise.
No, dude. She's your friend's mom. Back to your regularly scheduled spank-fest.
Also, I have to admit that I think Grace Park is hotter and there's no way I'm descended from that genetic stock. Tricia's modifications are a pretty big turn-off.
Exactly. TFA makes the case that not all games should be romps through exciting fantasy worlds. It doesn't say that exciting games are a bad idea, just that game companies and distribution channels would be wise to have a larger perspective on what constitutes a potentially successful game.
My take on what he's saying: other companies should be more like Nintendo, and there's nothing stopping them from growing the gaming market (the same way Nintendo is successfully doing) once they decide to put away their blinders.
In this case, they're different beasts entirely. Ethanol won't clean your tank and fuel lines of gunk, mostly because diesel is much more likely to have gunk in the tank and fuel lines. Much of that gunk is bacterial and gasoline is too toxic to support life. That and diesel fuel tends to have lots more water in it (the gunk normally grows at the water/fuel interfaces) which further creates rust inside of steel tanks. You don't hear about too much interior rust in steel gasoline tanks because there's not as much water.
Most of what needs cleaning in a gasoline engine is carbonization deposits in the combustion chamber. But clogging in the injectors isn't going to get worse because of ethanol unless you're using old fuel lines and they disintegrate into the fuel.
Well, it's not compatible with buna-n based rubbers, but it's not like gasoline is all sunshine and fresh breezes. It's quite possible to buy fuel lines (and other fuel handling components) appropriate for ethanol. Most newer US-made vehicles already come with fuel systems that can handle 85% ethanol.
#2 - It clogs injectors.
False. Ethanol is a single chemical (it doesn't leave a residue) and burns 100% so it's not a likely cause of injector clogging. If you're using the wrong fuel lines... well, yes. That will cause a problem.
#3 - it takes 1.8 units of energy to produce and distribute 1 energy-unit of Ethanol to the consumer.
False. Pimintel certainly is loud, but he's just about the only researcher saying this, and he's basing his numbers on 70's era technology. Currently, you get 1.35 units of highly purified ethanol for 1 unit of fuel put into the effort (and that fuel can be ethanol or biodiesel, closing out fossil fuels entirely).
[ethanol] reduces your gas mileage, causing you to buy more gas.
This is true, ethanol has less energy per unit volume, so you'll get fewer miles per fill up. In terms of energy efficiency, however, ethanol is pretty much a wash. Now, people absolutely should know that they'll only get 75% of the range from E85 that they do from gasoline, and E85 will need to be priced accordingly, but I suspect that the difference is substantial enough that people will notice and demand energy-equivalent pricing.
I can easily seeing a totally meaningless conversation with nothing but acronyms and shortcuts and words no bigger than 5 letters, all in the span of a few minutes. Makes me wonder about our next generation. It really does.
Have you ever listened to teenagers talking? They don't need SMS to continuously say nothing of importance. Near as I can tell from people who were observing teenagers back in the day, this hasn't changed at all in the past sixty years. I suspect teenagers were grunting over nothing important long before humans discovered fire, but nobody's really bothered to record it because there's nothing of consequence to record...
Don't worry. These teenagers have the same potential as those in times past. It's the medium that's changed, not the (lack of) message.
A dvd player is nothign compared to the life of a loved one.
You have clearly added something to what I wrote and reached a confused conclusion as a result. The only reason that I will venture out of my bedroom is to retrieve my children and get the whole family to a safe place in the house. If a criminal wants to rob the place and gets away without putting me or my family at risk, I have insurance to cover the loss of computers, electronics, etc.
I am not interested in house clearing. I have taken classes on armed defense, and one-man house clearing is an incredibly risky proposition.
bullets can travel very far as im sure you know
This is why I use a shotgun with #6 shot. #6 shot will penetrate one plastered wall surface, but not two: none of the pellets that miss are a risk to anyone else in my home or anyone outside my home. FYI, shotguns are the widely considered to be the best home defense weapon for exactly this reason (also, shot spread increases the chance of hitting a target in the dark, shot is more likely to incapacitate than kill, etc.).
If they're after soemthing more, maybe the rare instance they wish to do some form of assault such as rape, then i'll get down n dirty and fight with all my life to protect myself and my family
We appear to be largely in agreement. The highest risk portion of defending my home is getting all of the children together with my wife in the master bathroom.
You want anything outside of the master bath? Be my guest. The police are on their way. I'm insured.
You want something inside that room? You'd better be able to handle getting shot multiple times.
You interfere with me while I'm collecting the kids? I'm going to do my best to defend my family.
Honestly, I expect that racking the slide of the shotgun and calling out, "Who's there?" while leaving the exits accessible will probably end a burglary most of the time. One friend and one family member have ended burglaries this way. No shots fired, one later caught by the police, one got away.
I do intend buying a rifle and a pistol, but i will only use for hunting/target shooting. and will be locked away in multiple safes, bolted to concrete.
I strongly encourage curious people to have a gun-owning friend take them to a range, and if still interested, purchase a gun, become familiar with it, use it for target practice, hunting, whatever. It is an enriching experience for most.
As for your decision to keep them tightly locked up, I applaud you for having such a clear idea of your responsibility in owning a firearm. You're three steps ahead of most potential gun owners (including me when I bought my first gun).
I will say only one more thing. Given that you plan to acquire first-hand experience with a gun, you may find that your thoughts around use of a gun for self-defense change over time. This does not mean that you were ever wrong, only that you have continued to learn and your own personal choices are entitled to change.
So you hear a sound at night, you get out of bed and silently get your gun. You then take this loaded weapon and proceed in the dark (don't want to warn the intruder by turning on the lights) towards your children's bedroom.
There's more to defending a home than you think you know. I'm expecting the noise that wakes me to be "out of the ordinary". I know what a kid going to the bathroom or getting a snack from the fridge sounds like. I hear lots of variations on that theme all the time. The sound of a window breaking? Or an outside door opening? I'm going to get up and check it out.
The first thing I do once I'm out of my bedroom and I've made sure that the hall and front room are clear is to loudly rack the slide of the shotgun and call out, "Who's there?" while leaving access to the front door (or wherever I think the entry may have been) unhindered.
At this point, a number of things might happen. 1) someone says "It's me, daddy. I was just..." 2) someone makes a run for the exit (I'll let them leave, no worries). 3) anything else happens.
Studies have shown that you are more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder.
Check your data. If you're referring to the Kellerman study (the "43 times more likely to kill you or someone you know..." study) it's deeply flawed. Most of the deaths in that study were drug dealers killing each other off, but since they "knew each other" it counts on the 43 side. Suicides also counted on the 43 side... A successful suicide is hitting exactly what you aimed at.
Finally, I don't have to kill anyone or even pull the trigger to have defended my home with a gun. But the Kellerman study only measured firearm deaths. Pretty limited metric. I personally know three people (two men, one woman) who've successfully defended their homes or persons with a gun and not one of them pulled the trigger. Racking the slide of a pump shotgun or displaying the gun was enough to scare off the intruder in all three cases.
Next time something goes bump in the night and you go to pull out that gun just pause and think for a second, the biggest threat to your family at that moment, is you.
You have chosen to believe in a misinformed culture of fear. Fear of yourself and your neighbor. I choose to take responsibility and to not live in fear.
$250,000 for 1-2 percent of the company plus resources.
$250k for 2% means a $12.5 million pre-money valuation. 1% is a $25 million pre-money valuation. For two no-name kids before the prototype? You're smoking crack. One thing that I think you've overlooked is that ideas aren't worth much by themselves. An idea along with the will and ability to build a company is what's worth something.
Now, I'm completely aware that early stage valuation is largely speculation and hand-waving, but I have yet to see a pre-prototype, non good-old-boy management team valuation of over $2 million. The one valuation close to $2 million that I know of was back when VC's were throwing money at anything (and these were some very stupid VC's).
You've got to come up with one hell of a story to explain why this bright idea (and only the bright idea) is worth $12.5 million. That is one hell of a good story. Somehow, I don't think you're going to figure out a story quite that good.
a little offtopic, but i hope you do realize that many injuries/murders are caused by burglars taking gun off homeowner, using it on them or even finding the gun that is left around before the homeowner.
The conclusion you're reaching is not supported by the evidence. The revised Kellerman study shows that there's a 2.5 higher chance of being killed with a gun if you have a gun in the house. Upon further analysis, most of the difference seems to come down to domestic violence and accidental discharges. I have resolved both of these concerns.
1) In our house, there is a no hitting in anger rule (spanking is not hitting in anger, but we avoid that as well). If you're angry or upset, we can work it out, but we do not under any circumstances strike another family member in anger. My wife and I agreed on this rules about two years before getting married and we have not found it difficult to follow, even when very upset.
2) Gun safes/vaults, lots of lessons in gun safety, and rigorous checklists when guns are outside the gun safe. To make sure that the gun is unloaded before cleaning, for instance.
to be honest, baseball bat, ormaybe some good capsicum spray should be adequate defence. IF he/she has a gun, follow orders n behave. you'll live longer most likely, and they'll most likely get caught later on
You live the fearful life of a slave and you have my pity.
I choose to take responsibility for my safety and the safety of my family. I will not, under any circumstances, hand over that responsibility to someone in the process of committing a crime against me. Your advice is to do exactly that, and is therefore utter nonsense. I do understand that there are others who think like you do, but I am thankful that they have not yet forced me into that culture of fear and suspicion.
Why do you always assume that all intruders are absolutely evil and only come into your house to kill you and your children?
Where did you get that impression? All I know is that they're in my house and they probably know my family and I are home and asleep. I conclude from that observation that there's a good chance they feel they can "deal with it" if someone wakes up.
If they're between me and my children (the way my house is designed, the master bedroom is far away from the other bedrooms), they are a threat to me and my children. By their own actions, the robbers have forced me to choose between a real, substantial risk to me and my children or shooting at one or more strangers.
Guess which one I choose?
But I don't assume that the robbers intend to kill. They intend to rob. But by the nature of their decision to rob my home, they have forced me to make a choice between them and my family. I am prepared to make what I believe is the right choice.
Also, by owning a gun you force burglars to carry a gun themselves, because they need to defend themselves from overzealous homeowners who shoot burglars on the flight in the back.
Your concept of right and wrong is foreign to me, and I earnestly hope that I am never so far deluded that statements like yours ever start to make sense. I can safely assume that you approve of shooting burglars, so long as I can hit them in the side or the chest?
Did you read about that happening one time and decided to pretend that all people defending their homes with a gun will do that? What utter twaddle. By threatening my family, your life is forfeit. Put responsibility for the consequential result on the original actor: the burglar.
FYI, I'm an atheist/agnostic and will probably not vote for the Republican candidate in '08.
Nowadays there are things gun maufacturers [sic] can do to make it hard for anyone other than the owner to use the gun.
Just a few thoughts. All of those "things" that gun makers can add to the gun also make it harder for the owner to use the gun.
Trigger lock? There's a key, somewhere around here... (there's actually a whole host of issues around these keys: five year olds understand locks and keys, so either they're with you or they're available to the kids.) I earnestly hope I don't have to figure out how to silently remove a trigger lock in the dark while an intruder is in the hall between me and my children.
Magic ring that enables the electronic trigger? Hope the battery didn't die (in the ring and/or in the gun), hope the gunpowder residue and the cleaning fluid from the last time I was at the range didn't corrode or short out the circuitry. Hope the electronic components are able to handle the shock of firing the gun as durably as a mechanical trigger (unlikely, but possible).
Personally, I like gun safes and pistol vaults. The pistol vault I like the best is the one with the touch combination that with a little practice, is very simple to get right, even in the dark, even under stress. Still an extra step, but it's a mighty small obstacle to me and a much bigger obstacle to the kids or to a thief (assuming I installed the pistol vault correctly and they can't just take the whole thing).
Back to the point: there's nothing the gun manufacturer can do to the gun to make it harder for someone else to shoot that doesn't also make it less reliable or less available to me. But there are ways for gun owners to responsibly keep firearms, which leads the discussion to where the responsibility really lies: with the gun owner. If a kid takes one of my guns and accidentally kills another kid, I'm going to feel responsible for the tragedy. So I do what I can to minimize the chances of that happening while still keeping responsibility for my own self defense. And IMHO, that's how it should be.
Space fights take lots of money to make. Explosions are expensive, no matter whether they're real or CGI. So they create fillers. The cheapest fillers are those where you can rely solely on props and effects you already have.
FYI, what you're referring to are called Bottle Episodes in the industry. You are absolutely correct in that they're a necessity so that you can have the occasional show with blockbuster special effects and otherwise expensive filming without a completely insane overall budget.
Did you know that Joel is gay? If you didn't know that, you can now expect that he would use a slightly different vocabulary from the typical adult USian male. You might even predict that it would appear in his extemporaneous writing.
Re:You can't force people to keep salaries secret.
on
Google's Evil NDA
·
· Score: 1
Whole Foods has a book in the break room that contains the salaries of all employees, from the CEO to the newest cashier, updated monthly. Whole Foods, while certainly party to the industrialization of "organic", appears to be a pretty decently run company with mostly happy employees, not a hotbed of chaos and intrigue.
Based on what I've seen: if wages are blatantly unfair or capricious, employees knowing each other's pay is a recipe for disaster. If not, then knowing what the people around you are being paid is not a problem.
Our poor health is due to our agricultural policy (which creates lots of excess calories leading to cheap junk food and oversize portions all around) along with a culture of instant gratification. The fact that health insurers are only now waking up to the cost benefits of preventative health practices may contribute, but to much a smaller degree.
And what the GP said is that socialized medicine takes incentives away from doctors and medical researchers, not patients. Not sure I agree with the GP, since grants can stimulate research even into areas that are not short-term profitable, so that's where I'd expect significant breakthroughs...
I found that the CFL bulbs with the fewest trade-offs (good color, instant-on, little/no warm-up period) were in the middle of the price range. The super cheap and the super expensive all had some annoying and substantial difference from incandescent.
When buying, if you don't have a neighbor/friend who can demonstrate a good brand (and place to get it), buy one of a few types from your local source (Home Depot, etc.), try them out. If you like one, go back and get enough to set up your home. If you have a Costco nearby, their return policy is good enough that you should be able to feel free to try their "big pack-o-CFL's" with no risk to you.
No. The light from high quality CFL's is much better than incandescent bulbs.
The only thing I can figure is that the people complaining about CFL's bought the 8 for $8 pack from Wal-Mart and are now utterly astonished that the bargain basement model isn't all that great. Lesson: there's no free lunch.
Since I started looking seriously at CFL's in 1999, I've tried about 10 different brands. Some of these are crap and are relegated to the "emergency only" box in the closet, while the better ones occupy every socket in my home.
I've found that the mid-level "instant-on" bulbs at Home Depot have the most pleasing color balance and the smallest color change in the minute after turning on. They weren't the cheapest, but they weren't the most expensive, either. This trend has held from 2003, the last time I bought bulbs for my home, through February of this year, when I helped a friend choose CFL's for his home.
Anyway, why is D3 better? I'm vegan so my pills only contains D2.
D3 is the same type of vitamin D that's produced by your skin and is more easily activated into the 1,25-D hormone in your body. For most people, however, a vitamin D2 supplement will still provide the desired result (stable serum levels of 1,25-D hormone).
If you want vitamin D3 in the winter, given your location and dietary preferences, mount a sun lamp in your shower/bath and turn it on while you're getting ready in the morning. At least 15 minutes three time a week will give you a significant benefit: enough to stop taking any vitamin D supplement. On the other hand, the supplement is pretty easy to consume and will almost certainly do what you want.
If the development company isn't assigning the copyright, they probably aren't giving that, either, and plan to leverage upon this software with other customers. This is a game that most contracting developers play.
Of course, the licensing of code used in a contract is more sophisticated than you're letting on, so it's more serious than a game.
When I've done contract software development in the past, I've brought a common library of foundation code that gets me started very quickly. I wrote this library after completing projects for two clients and realizing that I started each project with the same two months worth of work. So in the next downtime, I wrote a more flexible/reusable version based on lessons learned.
I'm perfectly happy to license this code to my clients and allow them to maintain it themselves once I'm out of the picture, but I don't want to lose the ability to use that library for the benefit of my next client.
IMHO, the best option is to negotiate the licensing terms of all of the parts of the project up front and in good faith. This means being clear that the contractor is bringing code written elsewhere to the project and wants to retain ownership of that code. This means being clear that code written specifically for this client (embodying confidential and domain-specific knowledge) will not be owned or re-used by the contractor. This also means being crystal clean about billing of time spent maintaining the outside library (*). There are a few ways to clearly differentiate between the three kinds of time. I find that a "domain-specific" test is generally enough to leave both parties satisfied that their interests will be protected.
* If we expect significant expansion of the non-domain-specific code I've brought, I'll ask for a lower rate when working on that part of the system. Otherwise, if the maintenance take more than an hour in a week, I'll eat the time, less than an hour in a week and I'll bill the time. This has usually been acceptable to my clients and acknowledges that we both benefit from that time.
Playing games just means a lot of hard feelings, a lost reference, no assistance maintaining the project, and nobody is happy at the end of the day. Be clear, be honest, and negotiate from shared goals instead of trying to screw every penny or minute of time from the other.
Slashdot Mirror
The foundation of science is philosophy, most usually, metaphysics and epistemology. For you to discount a philosophical argument as non-scientific is completely backwards. The philosophical argument must precede the scientific argument, and Occam's Razor is an incredibly powerful tool for those wanting to critically examine scientific and pseudo-scientific statements. Read a little bit about Occam's Razor. Really, the Wikipedia article is that good.
Young earth creationism founders in it's completely indefensible philosophy, long before it can possibly be evaluated to see if it makes any falsifiable predictions (it doesn't) or even reaches any informative conclusions (it can't). It's quite simply non-science, and therefore should never be offered for consideration as any sort of equivalent to the Big Bang theory, or any other scientific theory regarding cosmology. To fail to stand up for real science when someone makes a statement like yours (that there's no way to tell...) is to abandon rational thought for the wolves. I won't do it.
Good luck,
Ross
On one occasion, I saw a very fit father, two young children, one infant, and two bags of groceries pedaling down the bicycle lane of the street. Seemed to be doing just fine, if a little sweaty.
Back here in the states, I find the sedan or minivan to be superior to the "Gas guzzling SUV" for transporting two or three kids and groceries. Though I have tried to get one of those bicycles over here, the shipping is completely prohibitive. I am intensely curious as to how practical the production Chevy Volt will be for a small family. I'm hoping it looks more like the Saturn Astra than the Saturn Sky, but at this point, who knows.
Ross
There is no need to be arbitrary to decide between the two.I know it's Slashdot, but please RTFA. This article is basically complaining about the loss of materials science research, which is somewhat interdependent with high-energy physics, but not enormously so.
Regards,
Ross
But thanks for playing.
Ross
He went on to create an add-on that works against a provided (short) list of system libraries which adds functionality to Visual Studio, including the Express version.
MS claims he violated the EULA, but he doesn't see it, his lawyer doesn't see it, and I don't see it either (IANAL). Specifically what part of the license do you think he violated? I'm doing my best to not hate MS right now, but it's pretty clear that they are the assholes here.
Ross
You don't quite understand. I disconnected my TV to have more time for reading, hobbies, projects, etc. No antenna, no cable, no power. I love my house without a TV.
I still download BSG and watch it on my computer because it is so wonderfully entertaining. I also buy the DVD's because the team deserves some of my money for such a creative enterprise.
The TV remains unplugged.
No, dude. She's your friend's mom. Back to your regularly scheduled spank-fest.
Also, I have to admit that I think Grace Park is hotter and there's no way I'm descended from that genetic stock. Tricia's modifications are a pretty big turn-off.
Exactly. TFA makes the case that not all games should be romps through exciting fantasy worlds. It doesn't say that exciting games are a bad idea, just that game companies and distribution channels would be wise to have a larger perspective on what constitutes a potentially successful game.
My take on what he's saying: other companies should be more like Nintendo, and there's nothing stopping them from growing the gaming market (the same way Nintendo is successfully doing) once they decide to put away their blinders.
Ross
In this case, they're different beasts entirely. Ethanol won't clean your tank and fuel lines of gunk, mostly because diesel is much more likely to have gunk in the tank and fuel lines. Much of that gunk is bacterial and gasoline is too toxic to support life. That and diesel fuel tends to have lots more water in it (the gunk normally grows at the water/fuel interfaces) which further creates rust inside of steel tanks. You don't hear about too much interior rust in steel gasoline tanks because there's not as much water.
Most of what needs cleaning in a gasoline engine is carbonization deposits in the combustion chamber. But clogging in the injectors isn't going to get worse because of ethanol unless you're using old fuel lines and they disintegrate into the fuel.
Regards,
Ross
Regards,
Ross
Don't worry. These teenagers have the same potential as those in times past. It's the medium that's changed, not the (lack of) message.
Ross
I am not interested in house clearing. I have taken classes on armed defense, and one-man house clearing is an incredibly risky proposition.This is why I use a shotgun with #6 shot. #6 shot will penetrate one plastered wall surface, but not two: none of the pellets that miss are a risk to anyone else in my home or anyone outside my home. FYI, shotguns are the widely considered to be the best home defense weapon for exactly this reason (also, shot spread increases the chance of hitting a target in the dark, shot is more likely to incapacitate than kill, etc.).We appear to be largely in agreement. The highest risk portion of defending my home is getting all of the children together with my wife in the master bathroom.
You want anything outside of the master bath? Be my guest. The police are on their way. I'm insured.
You want something inside that room? You'd better be able to handle getting shot multiple times.
You interfere with me while I'm collecting the kids? I'm going to do my best to defend my family.
Honestly, I expect that racking the slide of the shotgun and calling out, "Who's there?" while leaving the exits accessible will probably end a burglary most of the time. One friend and one family member have ended burglaries this way. No shots fired, one later caught by the police, one got away.I strongly encourage curious people to have a gun-owning friend take them to a range, and if still interested, purchase a gun, become familiar with it, use it for target practice, hunting, whatever. It is an enriching experience for most.
As for your decision to keep them tightly locked up, I applaud you for having such a clear idea of your responsibility in owning a firearm. You're three steps ahead of most potential gun owners (including me when I bought my first gun).
I will say only one more thing. Given that you plan to acquire first-hand experience with a gun, you may find that your thoughts around use of a gun for self-defense change over time. This does not mean that you were ever wrong, only that you have continued to learn and your own personal choices are entitled to change.
Regards,
Ross
The first thing I do once I'm out of my bedroom and I've made sure that the hall and front room are clear is to loudly rack the slide of the shotgun and call out, "Who's there?" while leaving access to the front door (or wherever I think the entry may have been) unhindered.
At this point, a number of things might happen.
1) someone says "It's me, daddy. I was just..."
2) someone makes a run for the exit (I'll let them leave, no worries).
3) anything else happens.Check your data. If you're referring to the Kellerman study (the "43 times more likely to kill you or someone you know..." study) it's deeply flawed. Most of the deaths in that study were drug dealers killing each other off, but since they "knew each other" it counts on the 43 side. Suicides also counted on the 43 side... A successful suicide is hitting exactly what you aimed at.
Finally, I don't have to kill anyone or even pull the trigger to have defended my home with a gun. But the Kellerman study only measured firearm deaths. Pretty limited metric. I personally know three people (two men, one woman) who've successfully defended their homes or persons with a gun and not one of them pulled the trigger. Racking the slide of a pump shotgun or displaying the gun was enough to scare off the intruder in all three cases.You have chosen to believe in a misinformed culture of fear. Fear of yourself and your neighbor. I choose to take responsibility and to not live in fear.
Ross
Now, I'm completely aware that early stage valuation is largely speculation and hand-waving, but I have yet to see a pre-prototype, non good-old-boy management team valuation of over $2 million. The one valuation close to $2 million that I know of was back when VC's were throwing money at anything (and these were some very stupid VC's).
You've got to come up with one hell of a story to explain why this bright idea (and only the bright idea) is worth $12.5 million. That is one hell of a good story. Somehow, I don't think you're going to figure out a story quite that good.
Ross
1) In our house, there is a no hitting in anger rule (spanking is not hitting in anger, but we avoid that as well). If you're angry or upset, we can work it out, but we do not under any circumstances strike another family member in anger. My wife and I agreed on this rules about two years before getting married and we have not found it difficult to follow, even when very upset.
2) Gun safes/vaults, lots of lessons in gun safety, and rigorous checklists when guns are outside the gun safe. To make sure that the gun is unloaded before cleaning, for instance.You live the fearful life of a slave and you have my pity.
I choose to take responsibility for my safety and the safety of my family. I will not, under any circumstances, hand over that responsibility to someone in the process of committing a crime against me. Your advice is to do exactly that, and is therefore utter nonsense. I do understand that there are others who think like you do, but I am thankful that they have not yet forced me into that culture of fear and suspicion.
Ross
If they're between me and my children (the way my house is designed, the master bedroom is far away from the other bedrooms), they are a threat to me and my children. By their own actions, the robbers have forced me to choose between a real, substantial risk to me and my children or shooting at one or more strangers.
Guess which one I choose?
But I don't assume that the robbers intend to kill. They intend to rob. But by the nature of their decision to rob my home, they have forced me to make a choice between them and my family. I am prepared to make what I believe is the right choice.Your concept of right and wrong is foreign to me, and I earnestly hope that I am never so far deluded that statements like yours ever start to make sense. I can safely assume that you approve of shooting burglars, so long as I can hit them in the side or the chest?
Did you read about that happening one time and decided to pretend that all people defending their homes with a gun will do that? What utter twaddle. By threatening my family, your life is forfeit. Put responsibility for the consequential result on the original actor: the burglar.
FYI, I'm an atheist/agnostic and will probably not vote for the Republican candidate in '08.
Regards,
Ross
Trigger lock? There's a key, somewhere around here... (there's actually a whole host of issues around these keys: five year olds understand locks and keys, so either they're with you or they're available to the kids.) I earnestly hope I don't have to figure out how to silently remove a trigger lock in the dark while an intruder is in the hall between me and my children.
Magic ring that enables the electronic trigger? Hope the battery didn't die (in the ring and/or in the gun), hope the gunpowder residue and the cleaning fluid from the last time I was at the range didn't corrode or short out the circuitry. Hope the electronic components are able to handle the shock of firing the gun as durably as a mechanical trigger (unlikely, but possible).
Personally, I like gun safes and pistol vaults. The pistol vault I like the best is the one with the touch combination that with a little practice, is very simple to get right, even in the dark, even under stress. Still an extra step, but it's a mighty small obstacle to me and a much bigger obstacle to the kids or to a thief (assuming I installed the pistol vault correctly and they can't just take the whole thing).
Back to the point: there's nothing the gun manufacturer can do to the gun to make it harder for someone else to shoot that doesn't also make it less reliable or less available to me. But there are ways for gun owners to responsibly keep firearms, which leads the discussion to where the responsibility really lies: with the gun owner. If a kid takes one of my guns and accidentally kills another kid, I'm going to feel responsible for the tragedy. So I do what I can to minimize the chances of that happening while still keeping responsibility for my own self defense. And IMHO, that's how it should be.
Regards,
Ross
Regards,
Ross
Did you know that Joel is gay? If you didn't know that, you can now expect that he would use a slightly different vocabulary from the typical adult USian male. You might even predict that it would appear in his extemporaneous writing.
Whole Foods has a book in the break room that contains the salaries of all employees, from the CEO to the newest cashier, updated monthly. Whole Foods, while certainly party to the industrialization of "organic", appears to be a pretty decently run company with mostly happy employees, not a hotbed of chaos and intrigue.
Based on what I've seen: if wages are blatantly unfair or capricious, employees knowing each other's pay is a recipe for disaster. If not, then knowing what the people around you are being paid is not a problem.
Regards,
Ross
Our poor health is due to our agricultural policy (which creates lots of excess calories leading to cheap junk food and oversize portions all around) along with a culture of instant gratification. The fact that health insurers are only now waking up to the cost benefits of preventative health practices may contribute, but to much a smaller degree.
And what the GP said is that socialized medicine takes incentives away from doctors and medical researchers, not patients. Not sure I agree with the GP, since grants can stimulate research even into areas that are not short-term profitable, so that's where I'd expect significant breakthroughs...
I found that the CFL bulbs with the fewest trade-offs (good color, instant-on, little/no warm-up period) were in the middle of the price range. The super cheap and the super expensive all had some annoying and substantial difference from incandescent.
When buying, if you don't have a neighbor/friend who can demonstrate a good brand (and place to get it), buy one of a few types from your local source (Home Depot, etc.), try them out. If you like one, go back and get enough to set up your home. If you have a Costco nearby, their return policy is good enough that you should be able to feel free to try their "big pack-o-CFL's" with no risk to you.
Regards,
Ross
No. The light from high quality CFL's is much better than incandescent bulbs.
The only thing I can figure is that the people complaining about CFL's bought the 8 for $8 pack from Wal-Mart and are now utterly astonished that the bargain basement model isn't all that great. Lesson: there's no free lunch.
Since I started looking seriously at CFL's in 1999, I've tried about 10 different brands. Some of these are crap and are relegated to the "emergency only" box in the closet, while the better ones occupy every socket in my home.
I've found that the mid-level "instant-on" bulbs at Home Depot have the most pleasing color balance and the smallest color change in the minute after turning on. They weren't the cheapest, but they weren't the most expensive, either. This trend has held from 2003, the last time I bought bulbs for my home, through February of this year, when I helped a friend choose CFL's for his home.
Regards,
Ross
If you want vitamin D3 in the winter, given your location and dietary preferences, mount a sun lamp in your shower/bath and turn it on while you're getting ready in the morning. At least 15 minutes three time a week will give you a significant benefit: enough to stop taking any vitamin D supplement. On the other hand, the supplement is pretty easy to consume and will almost certainly do what you want.
Ross
When I've done contract software development in the past, I've brought a common library of foundation code that gets me started very quickly. I wrote this library after completing projects for two clients and realizing that I started each project with the same two months worth of work. So in the next downtime, I wrote a more flexible/reusable version based on lessons learned.
I'm perfectly happy to license this code to my clients and allow them to maintain it themselves once I'm out of the picture, but I don't want to lose the ability to use that library for the benefit of my next client.
IMHO, the best option is to negotiate the licensing terms of all of the parts of the project up front and in good faith. This means being clear that the contractor is bringing code written elsewhere to the project and wants to retain ownership of that code. This means being clear that code written specifically for this client (embodying confidential and domain-specific knowledge) will not be owned or re-used by the contractor. This also means being crystal clean about billing of time spent maintaining the outside library (*). There are a few ways to clearly differentiate between the three kinds of time. I find that a "domain-specific" test is generally enough to leave both parties satisfied that their interests will be protected.
* If we expect significant expansion of the non-domain-specific code I've brought, I'll ask for a lower rate when working on that part of the system. Otherwise, if the maintenance take more than an hour in a week, I'll eat the time, less than an hour in a week and I'll bill the time. This has usually been acceptable to my clients and acknowledges that we both benefit from that time.
Playing games just means a lot of hard feelings, a lost reference, no assistance maintaining the project, and nobody is happy at the end of the day. Be clear, be honest, and negotiate from shared goals instead of trying to screw every penny or minute of time from the other.
Ross