Only around 10 americans from 0-19 years die each year due to lightning strikes. My guess is that calling the kids inside during rain will in fact indirectly (more likely to avoid exercise in rain in the future etc.) result in many more fatalities than just leaving them out (of course avoiding reckless behaviour like climbing trees when lightnings are near).
But then again I live in a really rainy country and like rainy weather. And my kids really like to play outside when it rains. In fact they love it. And that is mainly because we as parents have shown them that it is fun to play in the rain.
From TFA it is clear that the spinning heatsink has a hole in the middle and that it is actually this hole which is situated over the CPU while the surrounding part of the cooler rests on a structure made for that. So the spinning heatsink will never touch the CPU.
Because the integral of the forces acting on some mass at the center of the Earth is zero. Or to put it differently: You are being pulled by (approximately) equal forces in all directions.
Strangely enough I did not find your comment asking this question to the guy who posted the burglary statistics showing higher crime rates in the US. Why did you only ask it to my post (where you in contrast to the other post can actually find the publication behind the figures)?
But to answer your question. The data are from a cross country comparison performed by the UN. I assume that they did their best to address your concerns. But feel free to read it up.
No. But my post was in response to a post which stated that the higher burglary rate in the US is evidence that gun ownership does not decrease the burglary rate. And it gave the impression that gun ownership is the cause of this difference. My post was meant to broaden this discussion.
But burglary is only one crime parameter. If you look at a broader range of crime statistics the picture is less clear cut. Rape is for example twice as prevalent in Holland as in the US. Overall victimization is also higher in Holland. But other crime statistics show less crime in Holland.
"Nope, Iran itself wouldn't actually use it one anyone; rather, it's the decent probability that they might just "loan" or "lose" one to one of the myriad of truly crazy real terrorist organizations they sponsor. Those people will use it on someone."
It is easy to analyze post mortem where the fissile material in a nuclear bomb originates. So countering the "nuclear bomb in terrorist hands" scenario can be as simple as adopting a doctrine of "nuclear material origin responsibility" and retaliate in kind against the country of origin in case of a nuclear attack.
This will of course put extreme pressure on safekeeping nuclear materials on the members of the nuclear club. But with great power comes great responsibility.
"Denmark got 33% of its electricity from renewable sources (and it was a bad wind year, only 80% of a normal year)."
That is only half true. 33% of the electricity _production_ was from renewable sources. Not the consumption. The problem is that wind energy is fluctuating with the wind speed. We are therefore exporting surplus wind energy at very low prices during peak production periods and importing expensive electricity (which can be renewable, e.g. from Swedish nuclear plants) during calm periods. And even worse: every one of these cheap kWh that we export are subsidized by Danish consumers.
But my main point is: We do not effectively get 33% of the electricity of the electricity that we consume from renewable sources (and implicitly ~20% from wind energy). According to a recent study we actually only consume half of the wind energy in Denmark (i.e. 10%).
"How can Denmark have electricity twice the price of Finland?"
Because taxes constitute half of the price. Or to put it differently: electricity is taxed by approximately 100% in Denmark. But I just read that commercial entities are exempt from some of the taxes. But even without any direct taxes we pay twice the price consumers do in the US. And that is probably caused by other types of regulation on electricity production. Our politicians have a nasty habbit of implementing hidden taxes that are subsequently paid by the consumer.
Denmark gets most of our electricity from coal based electricity plants and a small percentage from renewable sources (mainly wind). And we have the most expensive electricity (~41 cents per kWh) in Europe and only topped by Tonga in the World. You would have to be literally insane to place an international data center here.
The financial industry data center is probably placed here because of sensitivity of data or because they have to be placed close to the stock exchange. Or something along that line. It is surely not because we have plentiful cheap and renewable energy.
"Agricultural robots may have a similar effect. By making labor intensive crops (strawberries, fruit, vegetables, etc.) more profitable, production will shift in that direction instead of crops like grain that require little labor. But since not all tasks can be easily automated, the demand for human farm labor may go up instead of down."
There is also a health benefit of using more robots for harvesting fruits: No E. coli in the harvested crops. Robots don't have to go to the toilet. And sometimes human labour don't wash their hands afterwards. And people actually get very sick and some die from E. coli infections. So I for one welcome our new robotic servants.
"Google's new language landed with a loud thud, causing lots of interesting debates about the best place to stick semicolons..."
I did not RTFA but a search on the page for "semi" did not show any hits on semicolons.
But then again. I know where they can stick their semicolons. But if I write it my post will be caught by the profanity filter.
Are you saying that a country can only be attacked by a state-actor? Or are you saying that a war can only be waged against a state-actor? Both statements are obviously non-sense.
The argument of the GP is: Invasion of Afghanistan -> no terrorist attacks in the USA
The argument is not that Afghanistan has attacked the USA.
"There is no way that the military is going to permit autonomous combatant units. At least, not without having a stake put through its brain."
You are implicitly assuming that the USA will be fighting inferior enemies in the future and thus will be more concerned about bad PR than coming out on top. A potential future conventional conflict with a heavily armed opponent capable of inflicting millions of casualties will change that (most likely China but there are also other potential candidates). And in such a situation the US military will of course use autonomous combat units - just like the other side will.
"If i look at recent wars the need to disguise a single tank is not there. On the contrary. Usually putting a tank somewhere has been a show of force. The typical IED rigged on the roadside will not be operated by somebody having a infrared optics, sitting 2km away in a cold-war style observation vehicle/plane, but somebody with perfect visible light view on the vehicle."
You are looking at todays asymmetrical conflicts where western powers fight 3rd world armies and guerilla armies. These armies have no real capacity to take on western armies in conventional warfare. And they are not really a military threat against western armies and societies in terms of their capacities for destruction. Let me illustrate this: In Iraq the coalition has had a total of 4800 military fatalities including accidents while there have been 2700 coalition military fatalities in Afghanistan so far. These two wars thus add up to 7500 coalition military fatalities so far.
Compared to major conventional wars the casualty rates in these conflicts are therefore simply insignificant. Your suggestion is to use (most of) the limited military development resources on saving a few hundred or thousand extra soldiers in such conflicts. My view is that the main weight must be on preparing for major conventional (and nuclear) conflicts in the relative near future (~15-40 years). The likelihood of such conflicts is of course much lower than Iraq/Afghanistan type conflicts. But the expected casualties can be many orders of magnitude higher. For example a future conflict between western powers and a modernized Chinese military might only be won (or lost!) at a cost of several or maybe tens (or in worst case hundreds) of millions of fatalities in the west.
Now, I am not a warmonger but I do believe that peace is best kept by a strong military alliance of democracies. Or as an old Roman saying goes: If you wish for peace, prepare for war (Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus in De Re Militari).
But why would the British write "USA RULEZ"? You know BAE Systems is not American;-)
But maybe "RULE BRITANNIA". And if they have enough tanks they could add "BRITANNIA RULES THE HILLS" (now that those damned american colonists rule the waves:-)
"We must meet this threat with our courage, our valor, indeed with our very lives to ensure that human civilization, not insect, dominates this galaxy *now and always*!"
But how much extra will you spend for say a 2% points reduction in risk? Let us assume a crew of 5 astronauts. Will you spend 50 million USD extra per launch for that? This means that you are spending 10 million USD to remove a 2% of an astronaut dying. Or on average 500 million USD to save an astronaut.
Of course my numbers are pulled out of my a** and there are also other costs of mission failure. And we don't even know if NASA can provide better safety. But the point is that NASA is spending a disproportionate amount of money on safety. Money that could have saved a very large number of people if invested in improving safety/health in other areas.
Neanderthals did in fact have bigger brains than Homo Sapiens. So the image of a stupid club swinging half ape is probably wrong. But obviously bigger brains were not the deciding factor in the evolutionary arms race against Homo Sapiens. Much like today when I think about.
Time is money. It takes time to tie down shipping containers. And ship time is _expensive_. So if the weather forecasts show calm weather it is an acceptable risk to take.
Slashdot Mirror
Only around 10 americans from 0-19 years die each year due to lightning strikes. My guess is that calling the kids inside during rain will in fact indirectly (more likely to avoid exercise in rain in the future etc.) result in many more fatalities than just leaving them out (of course avoiding reckless behaviour like climbing trees when lightnings are near).
But then again I live in a really rainy country and like rainy weather. And my kids really like to play outside when it rains. In fact they love it. And that is mainly because we as parents have shown them that it is fun to play in the rain.
From TFA it is clear that the spinning heatsink has a hole in the middle and that it is actually this hole which is situated over the CPU while the surrounding part of the cooler rests on a structure made for that. So the spinning heatsink will never touch the CPU.
"9. What does an incoming hellfire sound like?"
An AGM-114 Hellfire is supersonic (Mach 1.3). So you won't hear it until after impact.
But if it is a dud you will of course hear it after impact.
"...the vector sum of forces will do."
Yes, assuming point masses. But that means that you are summing atoms. For practical purposes I would make an integral over the volume of the Earth.
"Why is the force of gravity at the core zero?"
Because the integral of the forces acting on some mass at the center of the Earth is zero. Or to put it differently: You are being pulled by (approximately) equal forces in all directions.
Strangely enough I did not find your comment asking this question to the guy who posted the burglary statistics showing higher crime rates in the US. Why did you only ask it to my post (where you in contrast to the other post can actually find the publication behind the figures)?
But to answer your question. The data are from a cross country comparison performed by the UN. I assume that they did their best to address your concerns. But feel free to read it up.
No. But my post was in response to a post which stated that the higher burglary rate in the US is evidence that gun ownership does not decrease the burglary rate. And it gave the impression that gun ownership is the cause of this difference. My post was meant to broaden this discussion.
But burglary is only one crime parameter. If you look at a broader range of crime statistics the picture is less clear cut. Rape is for example twice as prevalent in Holland as in the US. Overall victimization is also higher in Holland. But other crime statistics show less crime in Holland.
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Netherlands/United-States/Crime
Fortunately I got a head start when I "acquired" the space station control codes....
"Nope, Iran itself wouldn't actually use it one anyone; rather, it's the decent probability that they might just "loan" or "lose" one to one of the myriad of truly crazy real terrorist organizations they sponsor. Those people will use it on someone."
It is easy to analyze post mortem where the fissile material in a nuclear bomb originates. So countering the "nuclear bomb in terrorist hands" scenario can be as simple as adopting a doctrine of "nuclear material origin responsibility" and retaliate in kind against the country of origin in case of a nuclear attack.
This will of course put extreme pressure on safekeeping nuclear materials on the members of the nuclear club. But with great power comes great responsibility.
"If your Penis has joints in it, you've got more serious concerns."
Like maybe having too many genes in common with chimpanzees or gorillas?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baculum
"Denmark got 33% of its electricity from renewable sources (and it was a bad wind year, only 80% of a normal year)."
That is only half true. 33% of the electricity _production_ was from renewable sources. Not the consumption. The problem is that wind energy is fluctuating with the wind speed. We are therefore exporting surplus wind energy at very low prices during peak production periods and importing expensive electricity (which can be renewable, e.g. from Swedish nuclear plants) during calm periods. And even worse: every one of these cheap kWh that we export are subsidized by Danish consumers.
But my main point is: We do not effectively get 33% of the electricity of the electricity that we consume from renewable sources (and implicitly ~20% from wind energy). According to a recent study we actually only consume half of the wind energy in Denmark (i.e. 10%).
"How can Denmark have electricity twice the price of Finland?"
Because taxes constitute half of the price. Or to put it differently: electricity is taxed by approximately 100% in Denmark. But I just read that commercial entities are exempt from some of the taxes. But even without any direct taxes we pay twice the price consumers do in the US. And that is probably caused by other types of regulation on electricity production. Our politicians have a nasty habbit of implementing hidden taxes that are subsequently paid by the consumer.
Denmark gets most of our electricity from coal based electricity plants and a small percentage from renewable sources (mainly wind). And we have the most expensive electricity (~41 cents per kWh) in Europe and only topped by Tonga in the World. You would have to be literally insane to place an international data center here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing
The financial industry data center is probably placed here because of sensitivity of data or because they have to be placed close to the stock exchange. Or something along that line. It is surely not because we have plentiful cheap and renewable energy.
Here is a link for a previous slashdot article on something similar:
http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/04/0258221/using-classical-music-as-a-form-of-social-control
But maybe it is in fact just driving the youth away and not just criminal types:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/05/11/30/0021211/driving-away-teens-with-high-frequency-noise
"Agricultural robots may have a similar effect. By making labor intensive crops (strawberries, fruit, vegetables, etc.) more profitable, production will shift in that direction instead of crops like grain that require little labor. But since not all tasks can be easily automated, the demand for human farm labor may go up instead of down."
There is also a health benefit of using more robots for harvesting fruits: No E. coli in the harvested crops. Robots don't have to go to the toilet. And sometimes human labour don't wash their hands afterwards. And people actually get very sick and some die from E. coli infections. So I for one welcome our new robotic servants.
"Google's new language landed with a loud thud, causing lots of interesting debates about the best place to stick semicolons..." I did not RTFA but a search on the page for "semi" did not show any hits on semicolons. But then again. I know where they can stick their semicolons. But if I write it my post will be caught by the profanity filter.
Are you saying that a country can only be attacked by a state-actor? Or are you saying that a war can only be waged against a state-actor? Both statements are obviously non-sense.
The argument of the GP is: Invasion of Afghanistan -> no terrorist attacks in the USA
The argument is not that Afghanistan has attacked the USA.
"There is no way that the military is going to permit autonomous combatant units. At least, not without having a stake put through its brain."
You are implicitly assuming that the USA will be fighting inferior enemies in the future and thus will be more concerned about bad PR than coming out on top. A potential future conventional conflict with a heavily armed opponent capable of inflicting millions of casualties will change that (most likely China but there are also other potential candidates). And in such a situation the US military will of course use autonomous combat units - just like the other side will.
"If i look at recent wars the need to disguise a single tank is not there. On the contrary. Usually putting a tank somewhere has been a show of force. The typical IED rigged on the roadside will not be operated by somebody having a infrared optics, sitting 2km away in a cold-war style observation vehicle/plane, but somebody with perfect visible light view on the vehicle."
You are looking at todays asymmetrical conflicts where western powers fight 3rd world armies and guerilla armies. These armies have no real capacity to take on western armies in conventional warfare. And they are not really a military threat against western armies and societies in terms of their capacities for destruction. Let me illustrate this: In Iraq the coalition has had a total of 4800 military fatalities including accidents while there have been 2700 coalition military fatalities in Afghanistan so far. These two wars thus add up to 7500 coalition military fatalities so far.
Compared to major conventional wars the casualty rates in these conflicts are therefore simply insignificant. Your suggestion is to use (most of) the limited military development resources on saving a few hundred or thousand extra soldiers in such conflicts. My view is that the main weight must be on preparing for major conventional (and nuclear) conflicts in the relative near future (~15-40 years). The likelihood of such conflicts is of course much lower than Iraq/Afghanistan type conflicts. But the expected casualties can be many orders of magnitude higher. For example a future conflict between western powers and a modernized Chinese military might only be won (or lost!) at a cost of several or maybe tens (or in worst case hundreds) of millions of fatalities in the west.
Now, I am not a warmonger but I do believe that peace is best kept by a strong military alliance of democracies. Or as an old Roman saying goes: If you wish for peace, prepare for war (Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus in De Re Militari).
But why would the British write "USA RULEZ"? You know BAE Systems is not American;-)
But maybe "RULE BRITANNIA". And if they have enough tanks they could add "BRITANNIA RULES THE HILLS" (now that those damned american colonists rule the waves:-)
"We must meet this threat with our courage, our valor, indeed with our very lives to ensure that human civilization, not insect, dominates this galaxy *now and always*!"
- Sky Marshal Dienes
But how much extra will you spend for say a 2% points reduction in risk? Let us assume a crew of 5 astronauts. Will you spend 50 million USD extra per launch for that? This means that you are spending 10 million USD to remove a 2% of an astronaut dying. Or on average 500 million USD to save an astronaut.
Of course my numbers are pulled out of my a** and there are also other costs of mission failure. And we don't even know if NASA can provide better safety. But the point is that NASA is spending a disproportionate amount of money on safety. Money that could have saved a very large number of people if invested in improving safety/health in other areas.
Neanderthals did in fact have bigger brains than Homo Sapiens. So the image of a stupid club swinging half ape is probably wrong. But obviously bigger brains were not the deciding factor in the evolutionary arms race against Homo Sapiens. Much like today when I think about.
Time is money. It takes time to tie down shipping containers. And ship time is _expensive_. So if the weather forecasts show calm weather it is an acceptable risk to take.