The problem is that it's an inherently flawed method.
Yet Nate Silver accurately predicted the last two presidential election outcomes. Put another way, just because you're a skeptic doesn't mean you're not the one making shit up and chasing ghosts that aren't there.
I remember a case where it did. basically, the government failed to provide a translator after the first one quit and it took so long to find a second one the judge tossed the case.
I actually program exclusively in R and fine it OK once you learn the quirks. Where it excels is in sort of "jotting" down thoughts about programs. e.g. you can define a S3 class and then make one that only has a few of the properties, or claim your object is a class it is not. This would drive any Java programer bananas but it's super nice for going fast and loose.
Similarly, the fact that it can recover your call in addition to the arguments you passed makes several functions work much better when you haven't specified all of the optional arguments. Once you have specified them then it's back to irrelevant.
I just don't think it freezing has anything to do with anything. If the back of your truck can handle the litter, it can, if it can't, it can't. The energy has to be dissipated. Having some liter fly up doesn't really matter much.
Truck are not generally designed to keep passengers safe because they are really only meant to move around on a farm or work site. They generally have much lower safety requirements than cars so that they can cost less.
I think you're radically underestimating the amount of force a 50 pound object has to dissipate in 30 MPH of deceleration and the amount of deformation that is available to it. It's like how hitting water, at high speeds, is basically the same as hitting concrete.
yeah, that's not the claim. It is, "most of the time an accident can be avoided even when it's not your fault." He's saying both parties can avoid the accident in most situations.
I disagree. Mine stays surprisingly neutral. Now, I'm not going to put a 2.5 T car up against a performance car in any situation but handling in bad weather, but it's still a sufficiently stiff ride.
The reason you keep them double wrapped is to keep the moisture out so that they don't freeze solid and become dangerous projectiles or become difficult to spread out when you need to use them to cover the ice and snow and use it to get traction.
Just to be clear, if you stop hard, it isn't going to matter if sand is frozen hard or not, if it hits you going 30 MPH faster than you, it will end you quickly.
My car burns so cleanly that the CO emissions are well below breathable standards (e.g. much lower then when you stand near a two stroke outboard motor). The CO2 emissions would get you pretty quickly though.
That's a super simplistic view that misses a ton. First, if a cow needs five times as much grain (a conservative estimate), you're talking about 5 times as much tractor usage, farmer time, nitrogen fixing. Also, returning fields to grasses and letting the grasses stay in the soil puts a lot of GHG in the ground.
But seriously, we couldn't feed more than a small fraction of the Earth's population that way. Also, free range pork (as you appear to be advocating for) can have trichinosis, so I wouldn't eat eat if I were you.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that it's an inherently flawed method.
Yet Nate Silver accurately predicted the last two presidential election outcomes. Put another way, just because you're a skeptic doesn't mean you're not the one making shit up and chasing ghosts that aren't there.
I remember a case where it did. basically, the government failed to provide a translator after the first one quit and it took so long to find a second one the judge tossed the case.
I actually program exclusively in R and fine it OK once you learn the quirks. Where it excels is in sort of "jotting" down thoughts about programs. e.g. you can define a S3 class and then make one that only has a few of the properties, or claim your object is a class it is not. This would drive any Java programer bananas but it's super nice for going fast and loose.
Similarly, the fact that it can recover your call in addition to the arguments you passed makes several functions work much better when you haven't specified all of the optional arguments. Once you have specified them then it's back to irrelevant.
that speedy trials should probably have been guaranteed for civil cases as well.
I just don't think it freezing has anything to do with anything. If the back of your truck can handle the litter, it can, if it can't, it can't. The energy has to be dissipated. Having some liter fly up doesn't really matter much.
I was mainly interested in the claim, "most of the time an accident can be avoided even when it's not your fault." The rest is pretty obvious.
Truck are not generally designed to keep passengers safe because they are really only meant to move around on a farm or work site. They generally have much lower safety requirements than cars so that they can cost less.
I think you're radically underestimating the amount of force a 50 pound object has to dissipate in 30 MPH of deceleration and the amount of deformation that is available to it. It's like how hitting water, at high speeds, is basically the same as hitting concrete.
Ok, then I return to my original question. How would you have gotten out of those accidents?
yeah, that's not the claim. It is, "most of the time an accident can be avoided even when it's not your fault." He's saying both parties can avoid the accident in most situations.
I disagree. Mine stays surprisingly neutral. Now, I'm not going to put a 2.5 T car up against a performance car in any situation but handling in bad weather, but it's still a sufficiently stiff ride.
you might have bothered to try youtube first. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
those are both VWs.
What, exactly, do you think happens when you get hit by kitty litter bags that aren't frozen?
Here's a question, would you allow me to catapult kitty litter bags (that weren't frozen) at you?
The reason you keep them double wrapped is to keep the moisture out so that they don't freeze solid and become dangerous projectiles or become difficult to spread out when you need to use them to cover the ice and snow and use it to get traction.
Just to be clear, if you stop hard, it isn't going to matter if sand is frozen hard or not, if it hits you going 30 MPH faster than you, it will end you quickly.
OK, how could he and Mal-2 have avoided the crashes that they describe then?
My car burns so cleanly that the CO emissions are well below breathable standards (e.g. much lower then when you stand near a two stroke outboard motor). The CO2 emissions would get you pretty quickly though.
somebody anonymous woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
There is no federal speed limit in the US
if 220 feels safe, you've never experience a blow out at 160+.
Setting aside the methane production. Methane, carbon molecule for carbon molecule is a substantially more active GHG than CO2.
That's a super simplistic view that misses a ton. First, if a cow needs five times as much grain (a conservative estimate), you're talking about 5 times as much tractor usage, farmer time, nitrogen fixing. Also, returning fields to grasses and letting the grasses stay in the soil puts a lot of GHG in the ground.
If you aren't to Lebesgue vs Riemann within an hour, you're not trying.
But seriously, we couldn't feed more than a small fraction of the Earth's population that way. Also, free range pork (as you appear to be advocating for) can have trichinosis, so I wouldn't eat eat if I were you.
They can eat all kinds of leftovers and industrial byproducts.
stop, you're making my mouth water.
If you eat the grains that would have fed the live stock and the live stock crap, breathe, or dissipate heat, then, yes, it would be more efficient.