Instead of a glass, think of it as a U shaped pipe rising up out of the water.
Why not use a completely closed loop of heat-conducting pipe? You're not gaining anything by circulating new water through the system. I noticed TFA mentions they're using PVC. If PVC were conductive enough, there would be no need for filtering.
Obviously they can't dunk the facility underwater to fill the pipe, so they have to provide enough power to pump a few thousand gallons into the pipe to get it going.. that requires a substantial amount of power.
To clarify, you probably mean the portion of the pipe above sea level. The remainder can, of course, be filled by gravity.
What's changed since this same report was discussed last month?
IMHO It's not bad to give this report multiple blows to the head. It's kind of fun, like breaking a pinata apart. Now some more people get a turn swinging the bat.
You might want to read the article I linked. Nobody argues that library records should be strictly off-limits. They never were. But you are being naive if you think that law enforcement is a benevolent force that always has your best interest at heart. What if you had borrowed bin Laden's biography from this library simply to learn more about him? You may very well have had the FBI tracking you for a while.
Another case in point: Hundreds of immigrants to the United States have been held in jail for months or years simply because they came from a "bad country", and then they were later released after the government decided they were innocent.
Teams of people suck at decision making. Bad. Gates and Ballmer have teams and teams and teams of people to give them information. But in the end they make decisions.
I would argue that it depends on the team structure. And these guys have the best team structures that money can buy. In the end, though, whether I believe these guys simply hire smart people and then take the credit or not is unimportant. I grow weary of talking about these people.
I need more evidence before I believe. For all I know, Gates is like George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Arnold, who have or had a team of people making all important decisions for them.
It's really the most likely scenario if you think about it. If you have the money, you do not leave the prospect of success to chance. Why would you if you can afford not to.
And as you point out, it only takes about a week of training for a thickheaded soldier to use a crossbow. To use a firearm at close range only requires watching TV - people successfully kill all the time with only that much training.
Okay, so having watched on TV a firearm being used, I can SAFELY defend my home and cause no risk to myself, my family, or my neighbors.
BULLSHIT.
You're not doing much to improve my sense of safety, NRA fanboy. You're obviously very passionate on this subject. But it's a subject of your own making. Calling bullshit on your own subject is kind of weird.
Your passionate irrationality is why guns should be carefully controlled. I don't care how safe a gun owner is 99.9% of the time; it's that 0.1% of the time when his passion is out of control that he should not have a gun.
I've looked at a website about RICO and can't find much information on whether it could be applied to international crime groups. Would RICO stop groups operating outside the U.S.?
Yes. I forgot that everyone in Kansas is watching the Discovery Channel and learning about logical argument on the Internet in their copious spare time. Because it's so fun.
The whole "you're an arrogant liberal" thing is so old. You're not going to get mod points with that one.
That's a great quote. And there's an interesting sentence just before:
"Do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good.
(1 Thessalonians 5:20-21)
If you think about it, prophets have had new and radical messages to the people. It's important to be open to them. It is another exhortation to be open-minded and rational.
Throw that bible reference one out the next time you hear a hard religious line against open-minded thinking.
The real problem here is the effective government monopoly on education.
I completely disagree. Government must exist to create a society where every person has a chance to become educated. The marketplace does not advocate for the creation of smart consumers. This is obvious from history.
The ID agenda is really all about discouraging people from learning rational thought. When you think "rational" or "open-minded" or "questioning", are you more likely to identify those with the term "liberal" or "conservative"?
If you were a Conservative politician, would you want your constituents to be rational and questioning? No way.
Let's talk about what the fight is really about. It's about increasing the distance from learning logical or "rational" thought. People who learn to think rationally are much less desirable to a ruling class than those who are happy with a sound bite.
"Liberal" is the new codeword from the Religous Right in this country for "rational thinker". A rational thinker generally entertains and feels challenged by new ideas. Someone who is "out of practice" in rational thinking is not going to enjoy new ideas.
Let's face it: Mr. G. W. Bush would not be re-elected if his religious base required rational explanations for his actions. Education is inconvenient to the current ruling class, who happen to be Republicans.
If Kansas can push through ID as an option in science class, one of the only guaranteed exposures to "learning to think logically" is diluted and, by home-schooled children, perhaps eliminated altogether.
You have to look at it from the other angle. What do the creationists get out of apparently tightening up the definition of science?
Answer: They're trying to use the strength of science against it.
But you leave out the real answer to "why". Kansas is mostly rural. Science class is one of the only places a young mind is exposed to scientific, i.e. logical, thinking. If they can teach ID instead of science, the chance for the student's thinking to evolve along rational lines is removed.
Why is this good? Conservative ideology, especially of the Christian Right, is hard to swallow completely if you're a rational person (same goes for any ideology to some extent). Rational people typically question authority more than those who swallow simple sound bites and go back to watching the Country Music Channel.
So this tempest is REALLY ABOUT KEEPING PEOPLE STUPID AND EASILY MANIPULATED.
why must the scientific processes that describe any such events, and any potential forces that may transcend our understanding of the physical world, have to be mutually exclusive?
You're right, but that's not why the ID folks are in Kansas. They are there to push U.S. society further in the direction of acceptance of irrational belief. Our nation's national and international policies and behaviors (Bush's actions) are irrational. He does not provide rational explanations. This makes rational people angry. Bush calls rational people "liberals" and hopes that they will stop thinking so much and just let him keep doing irrational things.
I was in a similar situation to you, but I ended up with the opposite conclusion. The difference, perhaps, was that I got my Mac through work (I'm a data mining code developer), and I had an admin who knew both linux and Mac, and showed me how to customize my experience on the Mac to be more like what I was used to under KDE. In particular, I now have X11 on my Mac, which allows me to download and run open source programs written for X.
I can recommend the following book if you're interested: "Mac OS X for Unix Geeks" by Jepson and Rothman, put out by O'Reilly.
To me, SuSE and OSX are now conceptually pretty equivalent. Granted, I often use xterm, bash, and other tools that work nearly identically on both systems.
As an experiement, I'd like to see one senator from every state get elected by a process other than popular vote.
Lets say, jury trial. If it's good enough for mass murders, it's good enough for our political leaders.
I like the spirit of the idea, but it would be so much cheaper for corporations to influence the elections, don't you think?
The amazing thing to me is that some countries actually have really well-designed elections with public financing of campaigns, real debate about important issues, distributed vote tallying, validation measures, etc.
And yet Americans appear oblivious. Could it be that we need some humility, so that we can seriously entertain the idea that the U.S. is no longer the flagship of democracy?
There are new users on Slashdot every day who probably need to read this.
Thankfully, Slashdot has a feature that hides the Microsoft threads if you're not interested any more. So people for whom Microsoft has no credibility left don't have to bother reading.
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of a glass, think of it as a U shaped pipe rising up out of the water.
Why not use a completely closed loop of heat-conducting pipe? You're not gaining anything by circulating new water through the system. I noticed TFA mentions they're using PVC. If PVC were conductive enough, there would be no need for filtering.
Obviously they can't dunk the facility underwater to fill the pipe, so they have to provide enough power to pump a few thousand gallons into the pipe to get it going.. that requires a substantial amount of power.
To clarify, you probably mean the portion of the pipe above sea level. The remainder can, of course, be filled by gravity.
Well I'm no expert but one would think a metal grill would stop all but the most determined of marine wildlife.
And a windshield wiper to clear the fish off the grill once in a while.
What's changed since this same report was discussed last month?
IMHO It's not bad to give this report multiple blows to the head. It's kind of fun, like breaking a pinata apart. Now some more people get a turn swinging the bat.
Future pinatas quake with fearful anticipation.
You might want to read the article I linked. Nobody argues that library records should be strictly off-limits. They never were. But you are being naive if you think that law enforcement is a benevolent force that always has your best interest at heart. What if you had borrowed bin Laden's biography from this library simply to learn more about him? You may very well have had the FBI tracking you for a while.
Another case in point: Hundreds of immigrants to the United States have been held in jail for months or years simply because they came from a "bad country", and then they were later released after the government decided they were innocent.
Some more reading for your possible edification.
What does that mean exactly? Doesn't the "Patriot" Act allow for law enforcement officials to easily obtain library records during investigations?
The FBI can obtain a warrant from a secret court. The librarians are forbidden from telling ANYONE about the warrant.
In my opinion, this kind of secrecy and power is dangerous and wrong. I do not relish the prospect of living in a fascist society.
Fortunately, a number of librarians appear to agree with me. In one case the FBI backed down after issuing the warrant.
Interesting reading.
Teams of people suck at decision making. Bad. Gates and Ballmer have teams and teams and teams of people to give them information. But in the end they make decisions.
I would argue that it depends on the team structure. And these guys have the best team structures that money can buy. In the end, though, whether I believe these guys simply hire smart people and then take the credit or not is unimportant. I grow weary of talking about these people.
I need more evidence before I believe. For all I know, Gates is like George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Arnold, who have or had a team of people making all important decisions for them.
It's really the most likely scenario if you think about it. If you have the money, you do not leave the prospect of success to chance. Why would you if you can afford not to.
Whoops, my bad. I thought you were responding to someone higher up the chain. Please don't kill me. I didn't mean it.
You're not doing much to improve my sense of safety, NRA fanboy. You're obviously very passionate on this subject. But it's a subject of your own making. Calling bullshit on your own subject is kind of weird.
Your passionate irrationality is why guns should be carefully controlled. I don't care how safe a gun owner is 99.9% of the time; it's that 0.1% of the time when his passion is out of control that he should not have a gun.
Sounds good, but:
I've looked at a website about RICO and can't find much information on whether it could be applied to international crime groups. Would RICO stop groups operating outside the U.S.?
Keyboard shortcuts like Alt+Tab, Alt+Space, N, Win+D, Alt+F4.
Funny how they're all for the left hand.
Coincidence? More discrimination against left-handers? Or...something else?
Of course this is slashdot and we are supposed to think alike and reflexively be against anything the government does in the security arena.
Not like there are good reasons or anything.
The people in Washington are the most crooked bunch I've seen since Nixon.
And they can be quite nosy when they want to.
They've just learned to hide better now; the Patriot Act
makes hiding that stuff completely legal. Quite convenient, that.
Of course that's what you do. Only a moron wouldn't know to do that.
Yes. I forgot that everyone in Kansas is watching the Discovery Channel and learning about logical argument on the Internet in their copious spare time. Because it's so fun.
The whole "you're an arrogant liberal" thing is so old. You're not going to get mod points with that one.
That's a great quote. And there's an interesting sentence just before:
"Do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good.
(1 Thessalonians 5:20-21)
If you think about it, prophets have had new and radical messages to the people. It's important to be open to them. It is another exhortation to be open-minded and rational.
Throw that bible reference one out the next time you hear a hard religious line against open-minded thinking.
1 Thessalonians 5:20-21
The real problem here is the effective government monopoly on education.
I completely disagree. Government must exist to create a society where every person has a chance to become educated. The marketplace does not advocate for the creation of smart consumers. This is obvious from history.
The ID agenda is really all about discouraging people from learning rational thought. When you think "rational" or "open-minded" or "questioning", are you more likely to identify those with the term "liberal" or "conservative"?
If you were a Conservative politician, would you want your constituents to be rational and questioning? No way.
Let's talk about what the fight is really about. It's about increasing the distance from learning logical or "rational" thought. People who learn to think rationally are much less desirable to a ruling class than those who are happy with a sound bite.
"Liberal" is the new codeword from the Religous Right in this country for "rational thinker". A rational thinker generally entertains and feels challenged by new ideas. Someone who is "out of practice" in rational thinking is not going to enjoy new ideas.
Let's face it: Mr. G. W. Bush would not be re-elected if his religious base required rational explanations for his actions. Education is inconvenient to the current ruling class, who happen to be Republicans.
If Kansas can push through ID as an option in science class, one of the only guaranteed exposures to "learning to think logically" is diluted and, by home-schooled children, perhaps eliminated altogether.
nice to meet you. I'm sure you're a fascinating person.
But you leave out the real answer to "why". Kansas is mostly rural. Science class is one of the only places a young mind is exposed to scientific, i.e. logical, thinking. If they can teach ID instead of science, the chance for the student's thinking to evolve along rational lines is removed.
Why is this good? Conservative ideology, especially of the Christian Right, is hard to swallow completely if you're a rational person (same goes for any ideology to some extent). Rational people typically question authority more than those who swallow simple sound bites and go back to watching the Country Music Channel.
So this tempest is REALLY ABOUT KEEPING PEOPLE STUPID AND EASILY MANIPULATED.
There. That's how I see it.
why must the scientific processes that describe any such events, and any potential forces that may transcend our understanding of the physical world, have to be mutually exclusive?
You're right, but that's not why the ID folks are in Kansas. They are there to push U.S. society further in the direction of acceptance of irrational belief. Our nation's national and international policies and behaviors (Bush's actions) are irrational. He does not provide rational explanations. This makes rational people angry. Bush calls rational people "liberals" and hopes that they will stop thinking so much and just let him keep doing irrational things.
Because of the Locative Declension, you should have emphasized it this way:
"This is MY custard, are YOU the Janitor?"
See, the meaning of the sentence is now totally different. Nice try, though.
I think we ought to have a poll for most overrated software package:
* Norton Antivirus
* Norton Utilities
* Daikatana
* Duke Nukem Forever
* Word 1.0 (froze regularly on my Mac)
* Windows 95, a.k.a. DOS Wrapper
I was in a similar situation to you, but I ended up with the opposite conclusion. The difference, perhaps, was that I got my Mac through work (I'm a data mining code developer), and I had an admin who knew both linux and Mac, and showed me how to customize my experience on the Mac to be more like what I was used to under KDE. In particular, I now have X11 on my Mac, which allows me to download and run open source programs written for X.
I can recommend the following book if you're interested: "Mac OS X for Unix Geeks" by Jepson and Rothman, put out by O'Reilly.
To me, SuSE and OSX are now conceptually pretty equivalent. Granted, I often use xterm, bash, and other tools that work nearly identically on both systems.
As an experiement, I'd like to see one senator from every state get elected by a process other than popular vote.
Lets say, jury trial. If it's good enough for mass murders, it's good enough for our political leaders.
I like the spirit of the idea, but it would be so much cheaper for corporations to influence the elections, don't you think?
The amazing thing to me is that some countries actually have really well-designed elections with public financing of campaigns, real debate about important issues, distributed vote tallying, validation measures, etc.
And yet Americans appear oblivious. Could it be that we need some humility, so that we can seriously entertain the idea that the U.S. is no longer the flagship of democracy?
There are new users on Slashdot every day who probably need to read this.
Thankfully, Slashdot has a feature that hides the Microsoft threads if you're not interested any more. So people for whom Microsoft has no credibility left don't have to bother reading.