The CO2 per capita is a completely specious argument. The only question is your net CO2 consumption, but all the figures thrown about are the gross production. According to this book: http://www.amazon.com/Bottomless-Well-Twilight-Virtue-Energy/dp/046503117X , North America is the only continent which consumes more CO2 than it produces. It can do this largely because it is sparsely populated, and has a large amount of forests and vegetation compared to its population. It should be self evident that a given land mass can only support so many people given a particular level of technology. My suspicion is that Europe and China are over that limit, and the USA is under. As others have mentioned, much of the world outsources their agriculture to us, and we outsource much of our manufacturing to others, so we can't just say everyone gets so much CO2 per square foot of land. But we also can't just say every person gets so much CO2. It is a complicated global problem, and the best we can do globally, is to make sure that the cost to maintain our CO2 at healthy levels is incorporated into the price of the goods and services produced. The problem is that, while the task can be stated simply, it is quite complicated to implement.
I've got no problem with them throttling, but throttling and then calling your plan unlimited is False advertising, and should be outlawed. Perhaps we need some new language to describe what they are actually doing, but Unlimited is not it.
A geek test that can't survive the Slashdot effect
on
2011 Geek IQ Test
·
· Score: 1
Now with Siri, they've caught up. 2 year advantage just like they said. Now as for the Google killer comment, has anyone checked to see the response when you ask, "Siri, will you kill Google for me?" I'm a little afraid.
A tack which I've always generates some traction is to state that they could be right. God may have created us an monkeys separately and completely formed, but he also created an awful lot of evidence that we are decended from a common ancestor. I wonder why he did that.
I must of course post explaining to you that you have misused two and in fact you meant to use the word too. Then someone needs to come along behind me and post.....
Woosh!
It's like you people aren't even trying any more:)
Ok, the parabolic instinct explains Angry Birds, but now explain to me the Pet Rock, the Chia Pet, or anything sold by Ron Popeil. Sometimes people just fall for something inexplicably stupid and pointless. I'd write more about it, but I have to get back to World of Warcraft.
Apparently you're unaware of Newton's 4th Law. "Any natural disaster travels at the speed of the transportation you happen to be in at the time." Of course later Einstein showed that relativistic effects could add or subtract 10 or 20 miles per hour, but only in faster vehicles which weren't available in newton's time.
After reading your article, I've decided I'm going to have to see if I can find myself a jerkmeter. If I read the article correctly, you could find someone you think is a jerk, crack them over the head with it and say, "See how big a jerk you are." Of course then I'd probably have to do the same to myself.
This is why I love particle physics. I am a scientists by training, but not a physicist, and while I have the sense that you two are not speaking gibberish, I can't be sure:) Or to put it another way, to paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced physics is indistinguishable from gibberish."
Kill for reason of skin color or religion and it's random-- anyone in that group is a possible next target. Due to this, the killer is more dangerous to the general population than a normal killer.
This is why I believe it should be referred to as "domestic terrorism". This would have several positive effects. First it would be more accurate, and second, people would understand how it differs from a standard crime. If 3000 people were killed in NYC on 9/11 for 3000 independent individual reasons, that is not nearly as big a crime which aims to terrorize the entire nation. This would also help people to understand the purpose of the distinction. If the people who killed Mathew Shephard killed him because they hate gays, and Mathew made a pass at them, or made fun of them. That is a crime against Mathew. If they selected him at random from a population of gays to send a message to all gays that being gay openly will get you killed, that is terrorism, and should be treated accordingly. In both cases they hate Mathew because he is gay. Only in the later case to they commit a crime against an entire group in addition to the individual crime.
If you've never played Lemmings on the Amiga, you've never played it best. It's the only version I know of that was a 2 player version. The Amiga allowed each player to use a separate mouse. Both players had lemmings, and while you could only assign new roles to your lemmings, the effects (such as blockers) would affect both players lemmings. You had two separate exits, and the object was to get the most lemmings out of your exit. If you were substantially ahead, and the other player was about to steal a bunch of lemmings, you would often attempt to kill them all rather than let your opponent steal. It was awesome.
I don't even mind the term Piracy since it is unlikely anyone will actually mistake it for actual high seas piracy, and while it certainly is a slanted term which implies theft, it is certainly a more convenient term than copyright infringement. What really bothers me is when people call it Theft. It is clearly not theft, yet people might easily confuse it for theft. That is the battle I fight. I fear the piracy battle is already lost.
It doesn't necessarily follow that if he can be right 90% of the time, he can make money. It's possible that what he says is true, but not particularly useful. Let me give you an example. I play limit poker, and while I'm not good enough to make a living at it, I am good enough to consistently make around $5-$15 per hour. The key is folding most of your hands. Typically, I make money on 1 hand in 25, meaning if I fold every hand, I will be right 96% of the time and still be unable to make money. The key is to maximize expected value. If the expected value of the 4% of hands I win is more than 25 times the value of the times I lose, I still make money, but it doesn't take very many mistakes to turn a winning proposition into a losing one. The key here is not the fact that he's right 90% of the time, but how much he loses when he's wrong vs. how much he makes when he's right. Those are not the same things.
I love the double ententre implied in your statement. We've definitely been celebrating mediocrity since dollar year. I'm not sure which dollar year you are referring to, but whenever big dollars are in play, mediocrity seems to follow:)
Re:Actually, this quite possibly could be useful.
on
Spray-On Liquid Glass
·
· Score: 1
It is quite possible this spray wouldn't work for the reasons you mentioned, but there are a couple of things you missed which I believe warrant a study:
This spray is not an epoxy. As stated in the article, this spray adheres to virtually any surface in a layer which is 15-30 atoms thick. This implies to me that it has an extremely high wetting ability which may act to draw it into a crack. It is clear in some cases that capillary action can be stronger than atmospheric pressure for some substances. This is clearly not the case for any sort of epoxy. It's possible this spray is so wet that it would in fact be sucked into the crack, but have minimal impact on the sharpness of the crack. It's also possible that it would adhere well to the crack and have a substantial blunting effect. It's unclear how this spray would interact with the large particles left in the crack.
As I said, it's quite possible this spray wouldn't be useful in this application, but it is a big mistake to think that what you know about how epoxies are used to repair windshield cracks has anything to do with how this spray would react. Further study might be quite interesting.
Actually, this quite possibly could be useful.
on
Spray-On Liquid Glass
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I know this was meant as a joke, but the way wind shields are repaired is essentially spraying in some clear liquid which hardens. It might be difficult to use this spray to get a clear windshield, but the key thing which causes cracks to run is the sharpness of the crack. If this could be sprayed in soon after the crack forms, it may keep the crack from running by blunting the crack tip.
I know it sounds like a joke, but Superman was quite instrumental in destroying the clan. http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/07.02.98/comics-9826.html Going back to the grandparents point about ridicule, when KKK members saw thier sons playing superman vs. the Klan in the back yard with the Klan always being the evil side, they started to rethink thier ways. I'm sure they still held many of thier views, but they became less likely to share them, and eventually they died. An interesting piece of American history of which I only recently became aware.
I just went there and did a search for the word fuck. They had an entire article discussing its origins. It's just that profanity has no place in most articles. Profanity tends to be a substitute for expressing your views. Wikipedia clearly has a slant towards clear articles which effectively state factual information in an organized form. For most articles, profanity has no place, but the article on profanity, for example, contains the words cock, shit, fuck, and many other profane words. I'm not saying widipedia doesn't exercise some censorship, but profanity is not a good example. The primary form of censorship they employ is to make sure articles represent as closely as possible a scholarly work. Take a look at the article on BDSM. There clearly could be a great deal of pornography on such an article, but that is not the intent. The intent is to inform. In the arena of information, wikipedia is very lax with respect to censorship.
After using many bluetooth headsets, I'd have to agree with the grandparent, bluetooth wasn't meant for real-time communications. "What, hold on a sec.... Could you repeat that?"
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I believe this is the idea behind Cap and Trade, though the implementation is terribly flawed.
The CO2 per capita is a completely specious argument. The only question is your net CO2 consumption, but all the figures thrown about are the gross production. According to this book: http://www.amazon.com/Bottomless-Well-Twilight-Virtue-Energy/dp/046503117X , North America is the only continent which consumes more CO2 than it produces. It can do this largely because it is sparsely populated, and has a large amount of forests and vegetation compared to its population. It should be self evident that a given land mass can only support so many people given a particular level of technology. My suspicion is that Europe and China are over that limit, and the USA is under. As others have mentioned, much of the world outsources their agriculture to us, and we outsource much of our manufacturing to others, so we can't just say everyone gets so much CO2 per square foot of land. But we also can't just say every person gets so much CO2. It is a complicated global problem, and the best we can do globally, is to make sure that the cost to maintain our CO2 at healthy levels is incorporated into the price of the goods and services produced. The problem is that, while the task can be stated simply, it is quite complicated to implement.
Or perhaps Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1611224/
Wait, are you saying CSPAN used to be interesting?
And Congressmen
I've got no problem with them throttling, but throttling and then calling your plan unlimited is False advertising, and should be outlawed. Perhaps we need some new language to describe what they are actually doing, but Unlimited is not it.
Is that ironic, or just sad?
Now with Siri, they've caught up. 2 year advantage just like they said. Now as for the Google killer comment, has anyone checked to see the response when you ask, "Siri, will you kill Google for me?" I'm a little afraid.
A tack which I've always generates some traction is to state that they could be right. God may have created us an monkeys separately and completely formed, but he also created an awful lot of evidence that we are decended from a common ancestor. I wonder why he did that.
I must of course post explaining to you that you have misused two and in fact you meant to use the word too. Then someone needs to come along behind me and post .....
Woosh!
It's like you people aren't even trying any more :)
Ok, the parabolic instinct explains Angry Birds, but now explain to me the Pet Rock, the Chia Pet, or anything sold by Ron Popeil. Sometimes people just fall for something inexplicably stupid and pointless. I'd write more about it, but I have to get back to World of Warcraft.
Apparently you're unaware of Newton's 4th Law. "Any natural disaster travels at the speed of the transportation you happen to be in at the time." Of course later Einstein showed that relativistic effects could add or subtract 10 or 20 miles per hour, but only in faster vehicles which weren't available in newton's time.
After reading your article, I've decided I'm going to have to see if I can find myself a jerkmeter. If I read the article correctly, you could find someone you think is a jerk, crack them over the head with it and say, "See how big a jerk you are." Of course then I'd probably have to do the same to myself.
This is why I love particle physics. I am a scientists by training, but not a physicist, and while I have the sense that you two are not speaking gibberish, I can't be sure :) Or to put it another way, to paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced physics is indistinguishable from gibberish."
Kill for reason of skin color or religion and it's random-- anyone in that group is a possible next target. Due to this, the killer is more dangerous to the general population than a normal killer.
This is why I believe it should be referred to as "domestic terrorism". This would have several positive effects. First it would be more accurate, and second, people would understand how it differs from a standard crime. If 3000 people were killed in NYC on 9/11 for 3000 independent individual reasons, that is not nearly as big a crime which aims to terrorize the entire nation. This would also help people to understand the purpose of the distinction. If the people who killed Mathew Shephard killed him because they hate gays, and Mathew made a pass at them, or made fun of them. That is a crime against Mathew. If they selected him at random from a population of gays to send a message to all gays that being gay openly will get you killed, that is terrorism, and should be treated accordingly. In both cases they hate Mathew because he is gay. Only in the later case to they commit a crime against an entire group in addition to the individual crime.
Yea... Right... I'm sure you charge a premium for it though right :) ?
If you've never played Lemmings on the Amiga, you've never played it best. It's the only version I know of that was a 2 player version. The Amiga allowed each player to use a separate mouse. Both players had lemmings, and while you could only assign new roles to your lemmings, the effects (such as blockers) would affect both players lemmings. You had two separate exits, and the object was to get the most lemmings out of your exit. If you were substantially ahead, and the other player was about to steal a bunch of lemmings, you would often attempt to kill them all rather than let your opponent steal. It was awesome.
I don't even mind the term Piracy since it is unlikely anyone will actually mistake it for actual high seas piracy, and while it certainly is a slanted term which implies theft, it is certainly a more convenient term than copyright infringement. What really bothers me is when people call it Theft. It is clearly not theft, yet people might easily confuse it for theft. That is the battle I fight. I fear the piracy battle is already lost.
It doesn't necessarily follow that if he can be right 90% of the time, he can make money. It's possible that what he says is true, but not particularly useful. Let me give you an example. I play limit poker, and while I'm not good enough to make a living at it, I am good enough to consistently make around $5-$15 per hour. The key is folding most of your hands. Typically, I make money on 1 hand in 25, meaning if I fold every hand, I will be right 96% of the time and still be unable to make money. The key is to maximize expected value. If the expected value of the 4% of hands I win is more than 25 times the value of the times I lose, I still make money, but it doesn't take very many mistakes to turn a winning proposition into a losing one. The key here is not the fact that he's right 90% of the time, but how much he loses when he's wrong vs. how much he makes when he's right. Those are not the same things.
I love the double ententre implied in your statement. We've definitely been celebrating mediocrity since dollar year. I'm not sure which dollar year you are referring to, but whenever big dollars are in play, mediocrity seems to follow :)
It is quite possible this spray wouldn't work for the reasons you mentioned, but there are a couple of things you missed which I believe warrant a study:
This spray is not an epoxy. As stated in the article, this spray adheres to virtually any surface in a layer which is 15-30 atoms thick. This implies to me that it has an extremely high wetting ability which may act to draw it into a crack. It is clear in some cases that capillary action can be stronger than atmospheric pressure for some substances. This is clearly not the case for any sort of epoxy. It's possible this spray is so wet that it would in fact be sucked into the crack, but have minimal impact on the sharpness of the crack. It's also possible that it would adhere well to the crack and have a substantial blunting effect. It's unclear how this spray would interact with the large particles left in the crack.
As I said, it's quite possible this spray wouldn't be useful in this application, but it is a big mistake to think that what you know about how epoxies are used to repair windshield cracks has anything to do with how this spray would react. Further study might be quite interesting.
I know this was meant as a joke, but the way wind shields are repaired is essentially spraying in some clear liquid which hardens. It might be difficult to use this spray to get a clear windshield, but the key thing which causes cracks to run is the sharpness of the crack. If this could be sprayed in soon after the crack forms, it may keep the crack from running by blunting the crack tip.
I know it sounds like a joke, but Superman was quite instrumental in destroying the clan.
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/07.02.98/comics-9826.html
Going back to the grandparents point about ridicule, when KKK members saw thier sons playing superman vs. the Klan in the back yard with the Klan always being the evil side, they started to rethink thier ways. I'm sure they still held many of thier views, but they became less likely to share them, and eventually they died. An interesting piece of American history of which I only recently became aware.
I just went there and did a search for the word fuck. They had an entire article discussing its origins. It's just that profanity has no place in most articles. Profanity tends to be a substitute for expressing your views. Wikipedia clearly has a slant towards clear articles which effectively state factual information in an organized form. For most articles, profanity has no place, but the article on profanity, for example, contains the words cock, shit, fuck, and many other profane words. I'm not saying widipedia doesn't exercise some censorship, but profanity is not a good example. The primary form of censorship they employ is to make sure articles represent as closely as possible a scholarly work. Take a look at the article on BDSM. There clearly could be a great deal of pornography on such an article, but that is not the intent. The intent is to inform. In the arena of information, wikipedia is very lax with respect to censorship.
After using many bluetooth headsets, I'd have to agree with the grandparent, bluetooth wasn't meant for real-time communications. "What, hold on a sec.... Could you repeat that?"