Hey everybody! Conspiracy Of Doves is wife beating, drug dealing homosexual pedophile rapist kleptomaniac who acts as an informant for terrorists cells. Be sure to spread the word to everyone you know, especially local law enforcement, neighbors and anyone who might be looking to hire.
(If I'm making it up, you shouldn't care right?)
The real point is Assange more or less bragged about twisting and editing the information he gets for "political effect." He also seems to specifically target the US and only the US, as if no other country is currently doing dubious shit.
He has an agenda and everything he pushes should be viewed with that in mind. =Smidge=
For God to create the universe, He necessarily transcends it and is not bound to cause & effect, time, or space.
This is called "making shit up so I don't have to answer the question."
A thousand years ago people thought the Abrahamic God was very real and very active in the daily lives of humans, just like every other god before. Now that empirical science has provided workable and useful explanations for nearly everything in the observable universe, apologists are saying "Oh yeah?! Well God is OUTSIDE the universe! Neener neener neener!"
I'd like to point out that christians still wouldn't be wrong by suggesting that God did it, even if a later scientific explanation were available, since it's all a creation of God.
This is exactly why "God did it" is not an explanation. "Even if we're wrong, we were still right... just not in the same way as we originally meant!"
If you had a solid foundation for the claim "God did it" then you wouldn't have to keep moving the goalpost every time someone pokes a hole in the idea.
Why should I accept that there is no God? Because of science?
You have that backwards, IMHO. Instead you should be asking: "Why should I accept the claim that there is a god/gods?"
If you feel you have adequate justification to think any deity exists, then you can work from there towards more specific claims like how many there are. Then you can get even more specific, like claims specifically of Yahweh, or specifically of Quetzalcoatl... =Smidge=
The answer "she loves me" wouldn't be appropriate in a journal article in a scientific journal about correlating human brain activity with human actions, but it might very well be an appropriate answer in other contexts.
It could also be the case that when she looked at you, she remembered how much fun she had cheating on you last week and felt smug about keeping it a secret.
In other words, you can't justify your explanation because it requires you to know something you can't know. (ie the mind/nature/intent of your wife/God).
At least your analogy has two advantages over the "God did it" hypothesis: First, it actually does offer an explanation even if you can't justify it. It makes a lot of assumptions but if we accept those then the conclusion can follow logically. "God did it" offers no such possible connection... it's merely a bald assertion.
Second, there is sufficient cause to believe your wife actually exists in the first place, which is actually another layer to the problem. =Smidge=
I've never understood why hardcore atheists believe that scientific explanations preclude God as a valid concept.
Because "God did it" adds nothing to our understanding and adds an extra, seemingly unnecessary link in the chain of reasoning. It's a platitude, not an explanation. On top of that, "God did it" has never, in the entire history of mankind, been the correct answer where such answers became knowable:
Why does the sun move across the sky? God did it... no wait, the earth is rotating so it only seems the sun moves across the sky. Why do people get sick? God did it... no wait, it turns out there are things called germs and pathogens that affect our bodies and make us sick. Where does thunder and lightning come from? How is wine formed from grape juice? What causes the seasons to change? There used to be a "God did it" explanation for all of these.
So why should we accept "God did it" as the reason the universe exists? =Smidge=
There's no perfectly safe way to store a bunch of energy.
Nobody ever said otherwise... but surely you'd agree there are safer ways to store energy?
Most of everything else you said falls into the "not quite" category of truthfulness, too. For example, gasoline explosions are fairly rare in practice, and diesel fuel spilled on a roadway is not exceptionally slippery (and if it is, my experience is this is the diesel dissolving the tars and heavy oils in the asphalt - which happens with gasoline too.) =Smidge=
If you work for my benefit and get paid with my money I should have a right to know if you're doing your job correctly or not. These are government employees who are paid with tax dollars for teaching the public. The public deserves to know how well they do that job.
But you can bet that if the report had nothing but praise and adulation for the teachers, the teacher's union would not be making nearly as big a deal out of it. That is the hypocrisy thus revealed by my joke. =Smidge=
This is an elementary school. Now I might be wrong, but I'm fairly confident in assuming that the vast majority of students would not be owning and using their devices on the school's WiFi network.
If it's anything like the WiFi networks in elementary schools around here, they have a cart or two full of laptops that a teacher can sign out and use for a class for one day. If that's the case, just don't issue the laptops for a week and see what happens. =Smidge=
Only if you use 100% PV. As it turns out, PV systems put out peak power astonishingly close to the period of peak demand during a typical day.
Storage of PV does not need to be on-site either. You can dump any extra power to the grid an draw it from the grid at night - some utilities already have huge energy storage systems and large central systems are more cost effective than individual on-site ones anyway. =Smidge=
A data center that gets power maybe one or two hours a day for a few days a week is a very poor investment (think of the downtime!). A facility that "sits fallow" is worthless. There is no guarantee that the wind farm will be producing excess power at all.
There's also little reason to "funnel traffic" to the kinds of locations they build wind farms on. There's nothing else - which is pretty much the point of putting the wind farm there.
On the other hand, investing in utility grid upgrades is a GOOD investment, since it not only abates current problems but allows future growth as well. Could improve efficiency too... =Smidge=
Wind power can be sporadic. There are times when you will produce more than you need (or can possibly use, as in this case). This is why you store that extra, unneeded energy for use when you aren't producing enough.
You are basically suggesting we increase demand to meet peak output.
I do hope you can figure out why this is absolutely the worst thing you could do. (Hint: How do you serve that demand when you are not generating at peak, which is most of the time?) =Smidge=
And that's just storage. In practice, you get 70% efficiency for making the hydrogen from water and around 50% from a fuel cell turning it back into electricity. Inverter losses are typically another 2-3% (98% efficiency) on both ends.
0.98 * 0.70 * 0.97 * 0.50 * 0.98 = 22.6% overall.
Pumped water storage is between 70% to 85% efficient overall. =Smidge=
Yet they were willing to pay the higher price, so my question is would these people be willing to pay that extra amount directly from the venue?
The idea here is, if the venue can eliminate the scalper, then why won't the venue charge the higher price that people are obviously willing to pay? =Smidge=
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure someone will correct me even if I'm not)...
Counterfeit tickets notwithstanding, don't the scalpers have to buy the tickets in the first place? So even if there is ticket scalping going on, didn't the venue already collect the ticket fee?
If the scalpers don't sell all the tickets they bought, the venue still makes their money.
The only ones who get screwed are the people who buy tickets from the scalpers - which, if you're willing to pay more for the ticket, would you complain if the original ticket price was raised to the scalper's price? It's all the same in the end... =Smidge=
Old way: 10,000 trades a day, every few months or years the market dips for a few months and rebounds, every several years the market enters a deep recession for years.
Yet it doesn't have to be that way. the problem is people put money in the stock market because they want to make money, not because they give a sh*t about the companies they're investing in or their products/services. the result is everything becomes about making profit now instead of building long-term stability.
Fluctuations are one thing, but those "deep recessions" are all the result of a small group of people doing incredibly stupid things in the name of short-term profitability.
These high frequency tradings should be banned. They contribute absolutely nothing to the market, the companies or the shareholders at large. All they do is extract money at the expense of the market's overall health. =Smidge=
It seems the "4th dimension" is like a shadow world type place that you can move objects (and yourself) into, manipulate them free from interaction with objects still in "normal" space, then move them back.
If there's more to it, this video doesn't illustrate it very well. =Smidge=
The foam is made by filling a mold with hollow steel spheres and then filling the gaps with molten aluminum. VERY scalable.
I wonder how it would fair if, instead of using molten aluminum to fill the gaps, you coated the steel spheres with aluminum (or other binder that melts at a temp lower than the spheres would start to collapse at) and sintering it into a solid block. More air gaps means it's lighter, but still very uniform. =Smidge=
Slashdot Mirror
Hey everybody! Conspiracy Of Doves is wife beating, drug dealing homosexual pedophile rapist kleptomaniac who acts as an informant for terrorists cells. Be sure to spread the word to everyone you know, especially local law enforcement, neighbors and anyone who might be looking to hire.
(If I'm making it up, you shouldn't care right?)
The real point is Assange more or less bragged about twisting and editing the information he gets for "political effect." He also seems to specifically target the US and only the US, as if no other country is currently doing dubious shit.
He has an agenda and everything he pushes should be viewed with that in mind.
=Smidge=
This is called "making shit up so I don't have to answer the question."
A thousand years ago people thought the Abrahamic God was very real and very active in the daily lives of humans, just like every other god before. Now that empirical science has provided workable and useful explanations for nearly everything in the observable universe, apologists are saying "Oh yeah?! Well God is OUTSIDE the universe! Neener neener neener!"
Keep moving that goalpost.
=Smidge=
I don't think anyone is saying "God didn't do it" either.
What they're saying is, "There's no reason to believe God did it." These two statements are not the same thing at all.
(Usually paired with "There's no reason to believe God even exists" - but not always)
=Smidge=
I think the psychology, anthropology, sociology, biology and neuroscience departments would all like to have a few words with you...
=Smidge=
This is exactly why "God did it" is not an explanation. "Even if we're wrong, we were still right... just not in the same way as we originally meant!"
If you had a solid foundation for the claim "God did it" then you wouldn't have to keep moving the goalpost every time someone pokes a hole in the idea.
You have that backwards, IMHO. Instead you should be asking: "Why should I accept the claim that there is a god/gods?"
If you feel you have adequate justification to think any deity exists, then you can work from there towards more specific claims like how many there are. Then you can get even more specific, like claims specifically of Yahweh, or specifically of Quetzalcoatl...
=Smidge=
It could also be the case that when she looked at you, she remembered how much fun she had cheating on you last week and felt smug about keeping it a secret.
In other words, you can't justify your explanation because it requires you to know something you can't know. (ie the mind/nature/intent of your wife/God).
At least your analogy has two advantages over the "God did it" hypothesis: First, it actually does offer an explanation even if you can't justify it. It makes a lot of assumptions but if we accept those then the conclusion can follow logically. "God did it" offers no such possible connection... it's merely a bald assertion.
Second, there is sufficient cause to believe your wife actually exists in the first place, which is actually another layer to the problem.
=Smidge=
Because "God did it" adds nothing to our understanding and adds an extra, seemingly unnecessary link in the chain of reasoning. It's a platitude, not an explanation. On top of that, "God did it" has never, in the entire history of mankind, been the correct answer where such answers became knowable:
Why does the sun move across the sky? God did it... no wait, the earth is rotating so it only seems the sun moves across the sky. Why do people get sick? God did it... no wait, it turns out there are things called germs and pathogens that affect our bodies and make us sick. Where does thunder and lightning come from? How is wine formed from grape juice? What causes the seasons to change? There used to be a "God did it" explanation for all of these.
So why should we accept "God did it" as the reason the universe exists?
=Smidge=
Nobody ever said otherwise... but surely you'd agree there are safer ways to store energy?
Most of everything else you said falls into the "not quite" category of truthfulness, too. For example, gasoline explosions are fairly rare in practice, and diesel fuel spilled on a roadway is not exceptionally slippery (and if it is, my experience is this is the diesel dissolving the tars and heavy oils in the asphalt - which happens with gasoline too.)
=Smidge=
If you work for my benefit and get paid with my money I should have a right to know if you're doing your job correctly or not. These are government employees who are paid with tax dollars for teaching the public. The public deserves to know how well they do that job.
But you can bet that if the report had nothing but praise and adulation for the teachers, the teacher's union would not be making nearly as big a deal out of it. That is the hypocrisy thus revealed by my joke.
=Smidge=
Only if it's a bad evaluation that highlights my incompetence...
=Smidge=
Sex offenders... not so much.
=Smidge=
This is an elementary school. Now I might be wrong, but I'm fairly confident in assuming that the vast majority of students would not be owning and using their devices on the school's WiFi network.
If it's anything like the WiFi networks in elementary schools around here, they have a cart or two full of laptops that a teacher can sign out and use for a class for one day. If that's the case, just don't issue the laptops for a week and see what happens.
=Smidge=
If that were the case, the teachers and staff - who are exposed a lot more - would be getting symptoms too.
Here's a really easy test: Turn off all the wireless routers in the building and keep it a secret from the children and parents as best you can.
$5 says nothing will change.
=Smidge=
Only if you use 100% PV. As it turns out, PV systems put out peak power astonishingly close to the period of peak demand during a typical day.
Storage of PV does not need to be on-site either. You can dump any extra power to the grid an draw it from the grid at night - some utilities already have huge energy storage systems and large central systems are more cost effective than individual on-site ones anyway.
=Smidge=
A data center that gets power maybe one or two hours a day for a few days a week is a very poor investment (think of the downtime!). A facility that "sits fallow" is worthless. There is no guarantee that the wind farm will be producing excess power at all.
There's also little reason to "funnel traffic" to the kinds of locations they build wind farms on. There's nothing else - which is pretty much the point of putting the wind farm there.
On the other hand, investing in utility grid upgrades is a GOOD investment, since it not only abates current problems but allows future growth as well. Could improve efficiency too...
=Smidge=
You seem to completely miss the point here.
Wind power can be sporadic. There are times when you will produce more than you need (or can possibly use, as in this case). This is why you store that extra, unneeded energy for use when you aren't producing enough.
You are basically suggesting we increase demand to meet peak output.
I do hope you can figure out why this is absolutely the worst thing you could do. (Hint: How do you serve that demand when you are not generating at peak, which is most of the time?)
=Smidge=
The site you link claims 97%, not 98%.
And that's just storage. In practice, you get 70% efficiency for making the hydrogen from water and around 50% from a fuel cell turning it back into electricity. Inverter losses are typically another 2-3% (98% efficiency) on both ends.
0.98 * 0.70 * 0.97 * 0.50 * 0.98 = 22.6% overall.
Pumped water storage is between 70% to 85% efficient overall.
=Smidge=
...and not to mention that in nearly every case the final image will be rendered on or captured with a device that uses uniformly sized pixels.
=Smidge=
That's exactly what I said.
Yet they were willing to pay the higher price, so my question is would these people be willing to pay that extra amount directly from the venue?
The idea here is, if the venue can eliminate the scalper, then why won't the venue charge the higher price that people are obviously willing to pay?
=Smidge=
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure someone will correct me even if I'm not)...
Counterfeit tickets notwithstanding, don't the scalpers have to buy the tickets in the first place? So even if there is ticket scalping going on, didn't the venue already collect the ticket fee?
If the scalpers don't sell all the tickets they bought, the venue still makes their money.
The only ones who get screwed are the people who buy tickets from the scalpers - which, if you're willing to pay more for the ticket, would you complain if the original ticket price was raised to the scalper's price? It's all the same in the end...
=Smidge=
Old way: 10,000 trades a day, every few months or years the market dips for a few months and rebounds, every several years the market enters a deep recession for years.
Yet it doesn't have to be that way. the problem is people put money in the stock market because they want to make money, not because they give a sh*t about the companies they're investing in or their products/services. the result is everything becomes about making profit now instead of building long-term stability.
Fluctuations are one thing, but those "deep recessions" are all the result of a small group of people doing incredibly stupid things in the name of short-term profitability.
These high frequency tradings should be banned. They contribute absolutely nothing to the market, the companies or the shareholders at large. All they do is extract money at the expense of the market's overall health.
=Smidge=
Doesn't look that confusing from the video.
It seems the "4th dimension" is like a shadow world type place that you can move objects (and yourself) into, manipulate them free from interaction with objects still in "normal" space, then move them back.
If there's more to it, this video doesn't illustrate it very well.
=Smidge=
The custom controller would REPLACE the the on-drive controller, not sit on top of it.
=Smidge=
The foam is made by filling a mold with hollow steel spheres and then filling the gaps with molten aluminum. VERY scalable.
I wonder how it would fair if, instead of using molten aluminum to fill the gaps, you coated the steel spheres with aluminum (or other binder that melts at a temp lower than the spheres would start to collapse at) and sintering it into a solid block. More air gaps means it's lighter, but still very uniform.
=Smidge=
Obviously it doesn't mean that these elements are extracted directly from petroleum.
Methane (aka natural gas, a fossil fuel) is used as the donor for the hydrogen needed for the Haber process, and releases the carbon as CO2.
=Smidge=