A/Cs have an efficiency of about 3 (3 watts of cooling for every watt of electricity), so you need only add about 30% to the figure when adding in A/C.
You are an investor who made a profit and you can do two things: invest more in the stuff you have or take the cash. A dividend is the "take the cash" option while investing is not paying a dividend. When a firm things it has good places to put the money, they don't pay a dividend. Examples might be more stores (Wal-Mart), or research (Apple / Google). When the investment opportunities run dry, you enter a "cash cow" phase where the firm has a huge profit base and milks it. Then they pay a dividend.
Most people don't need this, -n is faster than 100, and most people can't afford a gigabit switch. If you can, then you can also afford a $25 to $50 adapter.
My ($100, five ink) home printer, printed on photo paper, is easily 10 times better than the one at my local CVS. I tried them once and just tossed it in the trash.
You might also wonder who is moding it "interesting" and "informative." I mean, "You have to remember that even Microsoft was still a relatively small player in the industry and had only starting to gain momentum." I do remember, the industry was huge and MS defined "IBM compatible" at the time.
I'm not sure you are reading what I'm writing. First of all, I'm not saying anybody is an idiot (though gravity probe B might make one wonder why you would give piles of money to physicists) I'm saying that high energy physics needs a revolution and that the next source is cosmic particles--this revolution will involve learning new things. I agree that current methods will not work and I do not have the answers as to how to get things to work--if I could say that I'd have a several publications in Phys. Rev. A right now. My point is that there will not be support for another accelerator, LHC is the end of the line. But it is not the end of the road, there are other paths, they look treacherous now, but so would LHC have looked before any of the accelerator work started.
"No, we have people who are just statistics people, who come from a statistics department, that do nothing but statistics and devlop new methods." OK, glad to hear it, sounds like things have improved.
"Even with a *perfect* detector, you only get to observe the decay jets produced by the created particles." After the wave functions collapse, yes. Of course this is also the moment of detection using our current technology. Even if detector technology does not change, you can get a million samples in 11 days with a 1 sq m aperture, or 10k/second in a 100m on a side ground facility (750g of air does little to slow down most 10J particles).
Yes, if you used current sensing equipment and technology, it would not work. If I were saying that we needed to figure out a way to focus x-rays 20 years ago, you would be saying, "it can't be done, they cannot be focused." But they are, the attention of really smart people was just in the wrong place (i.e., not on astronomy).
"In particle physics very advanced statistics is used. Why would you think they don't?" Everybody with a Ph.D. thinks there are people in their field that use, "advanced statistics." When I last checked it was, "all measured values are normally distributed, all sensors have a boxcar response" and all sensors had to be crammed into this model for their data to be analyzed. Removing background hits with anything but a sledgehammer (necessary for an in situ type source) is not really in the playbook. But I'll grant you that things may have changed since I last checked, it has been awhile.
BTW, he wrote, " You would need to wait millions of years to detect the highs particle for example." but if you have a detector with a one sq-m aperture (ball park typical for a space telescope), you get one per second. There is also ground equipment that detects them and published papers on the topic, refuting both claims.
"That's too low a luminosity." You say this and I agree that it is physicist conventional wisdom, but so was, "you can't focus x-rays." Which is to say that the person who sees that it is not will be very famous.
In the second paragraph I'm saying that physicists do pretty basic statistics but very advanced probability. The good news is that if you know advanced probability, you can learn statistics pretty easily, but you have to do it--if you go Bayesian, then you don't even really have to learn statistics at all, it stays all probability. BTW, IWARP (I was a radiation physicist), this is not "fame bait" as some moderator said, I know what I'm talking about. I truly predict that high energy physicists will have to learn to use cosmic rays and that when they do that they will have to learn lots of advanced statistics.
"You would need to wait millions of years to detect the highs particle for example." one comes, every square meter, every second.
I do agree that the current crop of physicists are not up to it because they know very, very rudimentary statistics. But there is hope, they know lots of probability and it isn't a huge leap.
"1) Had the government purchase a whole car company."
It was free.
"2) Wrote a health care law to funnel money from consumers to the insurance industry."
Most of the text is actually about reducing fraud and closing loopholes. Very little money is actually involved in the individual mandate because age is permissible as a method of adjusting your premium and that is the main indicator of health and likelihood to buy health insurance in the first place.
"4) Basically dictated to banks they WERE going to take a huge sum of bail-out money, like it or not."
I don't buy this, but if you do, that was President Bush's treasury secretary.
LHC is the last collider, the benefit grows in low in size while costs grow linearly. The other problem with their complaints is that LHC cost billions of dollars while we know that particles hit the earth with about 10J/particle at about 1/(s m^2), while LHC is a wimpy uJ/particle. So the universe is giving away a 10 million times stronger source term that physicists could use. Could be build one this large? Not even using the entire mass of the planet. So why pay for more accelerators? Astronomy is the future of high energy physics.
And if you continued to read you would see that the CDC did not think this was necessarily a good idea because the vaccine is not tested in the younger age group, the infection rate is lower than this author says (they probably have more/better data) and note that severity is lower for vaccinated people.
Thanks to this article, I now understand why care givers for newborns need to get a booster right before they have their child (or, in the case of mothers, shortly after birth b/c it is not approved for pregnant women)--the vaccine loses potency rather rapidly and so you have to weigh vaccine risks against the level protection provided. In the case of new borns, the herd is the family/care givers, and they all need to protect the little one. In other cases, some infections are okay so long as outbreaks are relatively small.
The system would have to know you are the owner in the first place, so however it was transferred from the retailer to you, you would transfer it to the new owner.
For me it was the time I went there to buy a monitor and walked out when someone wasn't at the front checking receipts, so a guy comes tearing down hallway outside the store (in a mall), yelling at me to stop, grabs the monitor and holds on, demanding to see a receipt. I told him to get his hands of my stuff. He threatened to call the cops. I told him that I would like that so he would get his hands off my stuff. He then took said he would let go if I showed him my receipt. I agreed, but will never go back.
Wood releases its CO2 back into the air with a half-life of about 60 years, paper is much shorter than that. I can confirm this too. The cedar in my 100 year old house is lighter than balsa, meaning that the person who "over built" the house with 2x12s every 18 inches actually just planned for the future.
If you really want to get rid of the CO2, you must burry it, even shallowly, to prevent it from degrading.
I was thinking the same thing. There are a lot more problems with non-elected officials than them potentially being below average intelligence. There's the whole, turn the military on the people, be completely out of touch with what the people want, not care what the people want,..., the list goes on and on.
Slashdot Mirror
A/Cs have an efficiency of about 3 (3 watts of cooling for every watt of electricity), so you need only add about 30% to the figure when adding in A/C.
You are an investor who made a profit and you can do two things: invest more in the stuff you have or take the cash. A dividend is the "take the cash" option while investing is not paying a dividend. When a firm things it has good places to put the money, they don't pay a dividend. Examples might be more stores (Wal-Mart), or research (Apple / Google). When the investment opportunities run dry, you enter a "cash cow" phase where the firm has a huge profit base and milks it. Then they pay a dividend.
Most people don't need this, -n is faster than 100, and most people can't afford a gigabit switch. If you can, then you can also afford a $25 to $50 adapter.
My ($100, five ink) home printer, printed on photo paper, is easily 10 times better than the one at my local CVS. I tried them once and just tossed it in the trash.
You might also wonder who is moding it "interesting" and "informative." I mean, "You have to remember that even Microsoft was still a relatively small player in the industry and had only starting to gain momentum." I do remember, the industry was huge and MS defined "IBM compatible" at the time.
So, straight ad homonym, classy.
I'm not sure you are reading what I'm writing. First of all, I'm not saying anybody is an idiot (though gravity probe B might make one wonder why you would give piles of money to physicists) I'm saying that high energy physics needs a revolution and that the next source is cosmic particles--this revolution will involve learning new things. I agree that current methods will not work and I do not have the answers as to how to get things to work--if I could say that I'd have a several publications in Phys. Rev. A right now. My point is that there will not be support for another accelerator, LHC is the end of the line. But it is not the end of the road, there are other paths, they look treacherous now, but so would LHC have looked before any of the accelerator work started.
"No, we have people who are just statistics people, who come from a statistics department, that do nothing but statistics and devlop new methods." OK, glad to hear it, sounds like things have improved.
"Even with a *perfect* detector, you only get to observe the decay jets produced by the created particles." After the wave functions collapse, yes. Of course this is also the moment of detection using our current technology. Even if detector technology does not change, you can get a million samples in 11 days with a 1 sq m aperture, or 10k/second in a 100m on a side ground facility (750g of air does little to slow down most 10J particles).
Yes, if you used current sensing equipment and technology, it would not work. If I were saying that we needed to figure out a way to focus x-rays 20 years ago, you would be saying, "it can't be done, they cannot be focused." But they are, the attention of really smart people was just in the wrong place (i.e., not on astronomy).
"In particle physics very advanced statistics is used. Why would you think they don't?" Everybody with a Ph.D. thinks there are people in their field that use, "advanced statistics." When I last checked it was, "all measured values are normally distributed, all sensors have a boxcar response" and all sensors had to be crammed into this model for their data to be analyzed. Removing background hits with anything but a sledgehammer (necessary for an in situ type source) is not really in the playbook. But I'll grant you that things may have changed since I last checked, it has been awhile.
BTW, he wrote, " You would need to wait millions of years to detect the highs particle for example." but if you have a detector with a one sq-m aperture (ball park typical for a space telescope), you get one per second. There is also ground equipment that detects them and published papers on the topic, refuting both claims.
"That's too low a luminosity." You say this and I agree that it is physicist conventional wisdom, but so was, "you can't focus x-rays." Which is to say that the person who sees that it is not will be very famous.
In the second paragraph I'm saying that physicists do pretty basic statistics but very advanced probability. The good news is that if you know advanced probability, you can learn statistics pretty easily, but you have to do it--if you go Bayesian, then you don't even really have to learn statistics at all, it stays all probability. BTW, IWARP (I was a radiation physicist), this is not "fame bait" as some moderator said, I know what I'm talking about. I truly predict that high energy physicists will have to learn to use cosmic rays and that when they do that they will have to learn lots of advanced statistics.
"You would need to wait millions of years to detect the highs particle for example." one comes, every square meter, every second.
I do agree that the current crop of physicists are not up to it because they know very, very rudimentary statistics. But there is hope, they know lots of probability and it isn't a huge leap.
"1) Had the government purchase a whole car company."
It was free.
"2) Wrote a health care law to funnel money from consumers to the insurance industry."
Most of the text is actually about reducing fraud and closing loopholes. Very little money is actually involved in the individual mandate because age is permissible as a method of adjusting your premium and that is the main indicator of health and likelihood to buy health insurance in the first place.
"4) Basically dictated to banks they WERE going to take a huge sum of bail-out money, like it or not."
I don't buy this, but if you do, that was President Bush's treasury secretary.
LHC is the last collider, the benefit grows in low in size while costs grow linearly. The other problem with their complaints is that LHC cost billions of dollars while we know that particles hit the earth with about 10J/particle at about 1/(s m^2), while LHC is a wimpy uJ/particle. So the universe is giving away a 10 million times stronger source term that physicists could use. Could be build one this large? Not even using the entire mass of the planet. So why pay for more accelerators? Astronomy is the future of high energy physics.
Have they applied for a license yet? According to the Wikipedia page on the reactor itself, no.
And if you continued to read you would see that the CDC did not think this was necessarily a good idea because the vaccine is not tested in the younger age group, the infection rate is lower than this author says (they probably have more/better data) and note that severity is lower for vaccinated people.
Thanks to this article, I now understand why care givers for newborns need to get a booster right before they have their child (or, in the case of mothers, shortly after birth b/c it is not approved for pregnant women)--the vaccine loses potency rather rapidly and so you have to weigh vaccine risks against the level protection provided. In the case of new borns, the herd is the family/care givers, and they all need to protect the little one. In other cases, some infections are okay so long as outbreaks are relatively small.
I was saying that the bulb itself could have had poor wiring.
The dead lights could also be cheep wiring. As for CFLs, when I used them I had them go out with approximately the frequency they said.
What, exactly, do you think this is going to do for you in a 120 foot wave?
good point.
And is your phone the type of phone somebody might want to steal?
The system would have to know you are the owner in the first place, so however it was transferred from the retailer to you, you would transfer it to the new owner.
For me it was the time I went there to buy a monitor and walked out when someone wasn't at the front checking receipts, so a guy comes tearing down hallway outside the store (in a mall), yelling at me to stop, grabs the monitor and holds on, demanding to see a receipt. I told him to get his hands of my stuff. He threatened to call the cops. I told him that I would like that so he would get his hands off my stuff. He then took said he would let go if I showed him my receipt. I agreed, but will never go back.
Wood releases its CO2 back into the air with a half-life of about 60 years, paper is much shorter than that. I can confirm this too. The cedar in my 100 year old house is lighter than balsa, meaning that the person who "over built" the house with 2x12s every 18 inches actually just planned for the future.
If you really want to get rid of the CO2, you must burry it, even shallowly, to prevent it from degrading.
The trick isn't defining benevolent, it is finding a way to make being benevolent the Nash equilibrium for the leader.
I was thinking the same thing. There are a lot more problems with non-elected officials than them potentially being below average intelligence. There's the whole, turn the military on the people, be completely out of touch with what the people want, not care what the people want,..., the list goes on and on.