A federal judge decided that's EXACTLY what the statute requires
No. You're making shit up because you can't stand the fact that Trump has done something less than perfect.
: that kids NOT be held (past 20 day) and get handed to other care.
Nice deflection but that's not under debate, is is? We both know it isn't.
There is NO requirement that kids are separated from their parents because there is no requirement that the parents are held. Now stop pretending that is the case.
Every time I hear about Europe and the internet/tech its about how EU wants to tax/fine/punish/legislate/regulate something. Never about the latest thing, or the cool new invention, or whatever. Always taxes-fines-punish-etc. This all the stranger because there's a lot of Europeans per se who've done all kinds of things for the internet.
You are literally contradicting yourself there.
Unless in pragraph 1 you are referring ot the "EU" as "Europe" and in paragraph 2 not. That's the only way it makes sense. And even then, barely. The EU is a legislative body. That's literally its job.
ARM is "European" in sense of a street address for corporate
That and it was founded here and most of the designers still work in the ARM HQ in Cambridge.
It's interesting, with Republicans you've quoted what they said. With democrats you referred to what they did. Why didn't you refer to what those Republicans actually did?
I spent a good number of years working in the defense industry, and I've seen plenty (probably a 3-digit number) of "spills", "slips", and "mistakes". I've only seen one person actually be accused of having that criminal level of intent, though...
Quite. I actually fonud the rules refreshingly sensible. They're not some abstract platonic ideal of rules, but rules accepting that everyone involved is human. And that means two things. First, humans will screw up no matter what the rules say. Secondly, coming down harshly on them for a screwup is a great way to get them to try to cover things up which invariable make it worse.
It seems like people here think classification works like in some sort of Tom Cruise movie where one glimpse of the wrong thing an the hit squad is on your tail.
You're lying to yourself (on purpose, obviously). Kids WERE being separated from adults when illegally crossing the border. Under Obama. Why? Because it was (and still is) required by law.
No you're lying to YOURself. There is no statute that requires such a thing. Quote the statue or STFU an admit you're full of shit.
The law says you can't hold kids for more than a short couple of weeks, even though adults - especially those that have been tied to other crimes - are held for longer periods of time as they are processed.
That's the law allowing it, not the law requiring it. Try again.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that "bypass" is a concept that doesn't really apply to a jet engine that has to operate supersonically.
Technically you can, but yes it doesn't work that well.
And, as time has gone on subsonic, high-bypass ratio engines have seen drastically more efficiency improvements than supersonic jet engines.
Yes, part of that is it being clear that supersonic engines weren't the best strategy so they've had little investment. Fundamentally though it seems that the larger subsonic planes with massive high bypass engines.
The overall pressure ratio of the engines is still well below that of the concorde.
The Concorde burnt 2 tonnes of fuel just taxiing the runways.
That's not really an indictment of the Concorde's overall efficiency though. It was always a huge fuel hog (by design) on the runway, much more so than in the air. It was always designed as an efficient aircraft.
16L/100km per passenger in the air, or half the efficiency of the average car. I'm sure there will be relative improvements. But supersonic jets are a luxury
The concorde was designed successfully as a high efficiecy aircraft. What everyone forgets is that it was on the drawing board at the same time as the boeing 747.
At that time the path to high efficiency wasn't clear. There are two ways of upping the efficiency of the engines, higher pressure ratios and higher bypass. The concorde went the former route and has a pressure ratio still unmatched by any other commercial jet engines, but it had to fly at Mach 2.2 at high altitude to do that.
The 747 went for high bypass engines with rather worse efficiency in the core but much greater overall efficiency. Not needing to fly high and fast, they had much more flexibility on the airframe and could put a lot more people on, getting further gains.
Turns out the 747 strategy was the clear winner, but that was not obvious before.
You're thinking of the children in cages at the border? The cages built under the Obama administration,
So if Trump is os great why didn't stop that with an executive order. You are completely delusional: the policy of separating children from their parents (and sometimes simply losing the childred!) was Trumps through and through. You love Trump, you refuse to ever criticise him and so you too, personally, share some of the blame for what he does.
And your "hurrr but OBAMA" makes you no less responsible.
Nah, the difference in density between buses and vans is not so big as to be worth it if not for paying for drivers.
It really is. Every morning I commute via a busy station on the London Underground. The station is on a decent sized road by south London standards (single carriage way, one lane either direction with a shirt stretch of dual carriage way). This road intersects a similar one and has a few side roads.
The station is served by about 11 bus stops; the station has about 35 million people passing through the doors per year, according to TFL. Somtimes I get the bus if it's raining though I avoid it before about half past 9 as the rush hour is tailing off. At that time, the traffic is very heavy but moving. The busses are full but not packed. That means most seats occupied with quite a few people standing but I can usually get a seat somewhere if I share.
Those 11 stops are converged upon by about 24 different bus routes.
Under your scheme you propose replacing those nearly full double decker busses with a fleet of much smaller busses. There is no room on the roads for your proposal, though you seem to dismiss that minor point as "nah".
Also, buses driving around cities have horrible fuel efficiency.
Compared to what? Compared to smaller vehicles, the fuel efficiency per passenger is excellent.
On highway trips the mileage can be OK, but around town they are usually below 4 MPG.
but there's no getting around the fact that they have to spend a lot of energy in acceleration.
That's an argument for large busses not against them. All vehicles get poor MPG in towns due to acceleration and braking. Bigger busses are lighter per passenger.
They're much higher than cars, but they're not much higher than vans.
Yeah they are. A ford transit is 2.9 metres high. A new routemaster is 4.2m high.
And they have the problem that they require high-quality roadways,
They share the same city roadways as artics, dustbin lorries, tipper lorries and so on. So while techincally true, you need god roadways in busy parts of major cities.
which they do lots of damage to.
Yes; but if you want a high density transport system, you're going to incur cost somewhere.
We bought a '99 transit bus and it weighs over 20k pounds empty, some 1500 of that is the engine alone. The rear axle gross is 19k by itself.
A big double decker is about 12T.
Where roadways are not ideal (with lots of room for bus stops and the like) they cause all kinds of traffic problems.
Depends on what you mean by problems: at busy places they ARE the traffic. Anything that gets in the way of busses is what's causing problems.
Since they're huge, they require special service tools and infrastructure.
So do lorries of all sorts.
Literally the only reason we use them over vans in spite of all of these problems is that they reduce the ratio of drivers to passengers
And fuel efficiency. And so you can fit more people on the roads.
Buses are crap and the only reason we use them is that drivers are expensive and it's hard to get rail into places these days.
Depends where you live. There's an excellent bus network in London. Expense of drivers is not by a long way the reason we use buses. They're also a much higher density form of transport than cars. A double decker in rush hour can hold nearly a hundred people and takes up less space than two cars when you take stopping distance into account. It's only a little over 2 when everything's stacked up.
If you visit a major transport hub at rush hour, the number of people arriving by bus is huge. Regardles of the price of drivers, a 6 lane motorway would not be able to deliver people that fast if it was one commuter per car (or even 4) and you don't even hav a dual carriage way available.
Damn. You really are a whiner. Who complains about people knowing the NAMES of the machines? For chrissake.
Quite. He basically comes here and shit talks everything. It's a way some people use to try and sounds smart when they actually know very little at all.
i have two Bialetti Moka pots, a French press and two stove top percolators, one percolator is over 50 years old its a Revereware with a copper bottom,
(one moks pot and a french press here).
Percolators seem to have gone way out of fashion at the moment. My in-laws have a vintage ceramic bodied elecric one. Produces amazing coffee.
This is the one time you will see them (unless your social media account has already been banned) use the argument that free speech is only protected from censorship by governments.
Huh? That's all free speech is and can be. Any more protected and you're infringing on the equally important right people have to not listen.
My roommate ordered those N95 masks through Amazon since we couldn't find a local store that sells them in SF.
Yikes! That's brave. Ordering PPE through Amazon that is. Especially as how amazon do nothing to stop companies selling counterfeit knockoff crap.
I don't know how it is in the US but in the UK you're much better off ordering from an industrial supply company. Similar price (excluding delivery), free next day delivery, and very very unlikely to not meet the requisite regulations. And will come complete with a full datasheet saying precisely what it does protect against.
Suppose that women at my place of work are, on average, worse teammates than men. I get paid by what my team produces. Why shouldn't I refuse to work with women?
Let's suppose what you say is true: that the small number of women you worke closely enough with to judge their work are on average worse team mates than the men. Which presumably means not all of them since we're talking averages.
You're generalising your experience of a few women to the entire population and appear to not be extending the same actions to men.
That's pretty much the textbook definition of sexist.
I cba to click on a youtube link especially when I'm 99% sure you're linking to that interview that I've already seen. It's covered far better here than I could ever cover it:
So we still both know you're full of shit. It's funny that you realise you're suposed to need a good reason to hate someone. What's not funy is your desparate attempt at a post-hoc justificaton of your hate. You are prepared to stretch facts to far, far beyond breaking point in order to justify to yourself that your hatred is, well, justified.
Here's a free clue: if you need those mental gymnastics then no your hate isn't justified. You should probably example your motivations but I know you won't.
Slashdot Mirror
. I don't see a link to Google at the top of any of these pages.
So? How's that relevant. None of those companies are abusing a monopoly in a different area to push more business towards themselves.
A federal judge decided that's EXACTLY what the statute requires
No. You're making shit up because you can't stand the fact that Trump has done something less than perfect.
: that kids NOT be held (past 20 day) and get handed to other care.
Nice deflection but that's not under debate, is is? We both know it isn't.
There is NO requirement that kids are separated from their parents because there is no requirement that the parents are held. Now stop pretending that is the case.
Huh?
Every time I hear about Europe and the internet/tech its about how EU wants to tax/fine/punish/legislate/regulate something. Never about the latest thing, or the cool new invention, or whatever. Always taxes-fines-punish-etc. This all the stranger because there's a lot of Europeans per se who've done all kinds of things for the internet.
You are literally contradicting yourself there.
Unless in pragraph 1 you are referring ot the "EU" as "Europe" and in paragraph 2 not. That's the only way it makes sense. And even then, barely. The EU is a legislative body. That's literally its job.
ARM is "European" in sense of a street address for corporate
That and it was founded here and most of the designers still work in the ARM HQ in Cambridge.
Excellent comrade. You have earned an extra 1.5oz of Vodka this shift.
Point of order: Russia is on the metric system.
It's interesting, with Republicans you've quoted what they said. With democrats you referred to what they did. Why didn't you refer to what those Republicans actually did?
I spent a good number of years working in the defense industry, and I've seen plenty (probably a 3-digit number) of "spills", "slips", and "mistakes". I've only seen one person actually be accused of having that criminal level of intent, though...
Quite. I actually fonud the rules refreshingly sensible. They're not some abstract platonic ideal of rules, but rules accepting that everyone involved is human. And that means two things. First, humans will screw up no matter what the rules say. Secondly, coming down harshly on them for a screwup is a great way to get them to try to cover things up which invariable make it worse.
It seems like people here think classification works like in some sort of Tom Cruise movie where one glimpse of the wrong thing an the hit squad is on your tail.
You're lying to yourself (on purpose, obviously). Kids WERE being separated from adults when illegally crossing the border. Under Obama. Why? Because it was (and still is) required by law.
No you're lying to YOURself. There is no statute that requires such a thing. Quote the statue or STFU an admit you're full of shit.
The law says you can't hold kids for more than a short couple of weeks, even though adults - especially those that have been tied to other crimes - are held for longer periods of time as they are processed.
That's the law allowing it, not the law requiring it. Try again.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that "bypass" is a concept that doesn't really apply to a jet engine that has to operate supersonically.
Technically you can, but yes it doesn't work that well.
And, as time has gone on subsonic, high-bypass ratio engines have seen drastically more efficiency improvements than supersonic jet engines.
Yes, part of that is it being clear that supersonic engines weren't the best strategy so they've had little investment. Fundamentally though it seems that the larger subsonic planes with massive high bypass engines.
The overall pressure ratio of the engines is still well below that of the concorde.
The Concorde burnt 2 tonnes of fuel just taxiing the runways.
That's not really an indictment of the Concorde's overall efficiency though. It was always a huge fuel hog (by design) on the runway, much more so than in the air. It was always designed as an efficient aircraft.
16L/100km per passenger in the air, or half the efficiency of the average car. I'm sure there will be relative improvements. But supersonic jets are a luxury
The concorde was designed successfully as a high efficiecy aircraft. What everyone forgets is that it was on the drawing board at the same time as the boeing 747.
At that time the path to high efficiency wasn't clear. There are two ways of upping the efficiency of the engines, higher pressure ratios and higher bypass. The concorde went the former route and has a pressure ratio still unmatched by any other commercial jet engines, but it had to fly at Mach 2.2 at high altitude to do that.
The 747 went for high bypass engines with rather worse efficiency in the core but much greater overall efficiency. Not needing to fly high and fast, they had much more flexibility on the airframe and could put a lot more people on, getting further gains.
Turns out the 747 strategy was the clear winner, but that was not obvious before.
You're thinking of the children in cages at the border? The cages built under the Obama administration,
So if Trump is os great why didn't stop that with an executive order. You are completely delusional: the policy of separating children from their parents (and sometimes simply losing the childred!) was Trumps through and through. You love Trump, you refuse to ever criticise him and so you too, personally, share some of the blame for what he does.
And your "hurrr but OBAMA" makes you no less responsible.
Just man up and own your actions and opinions.
What do we call people who assert without proof?
Trump.
Nah, the difference in density between buses and vans is not so big as to be worth it if not for paying for drivers.
It really is. Every morning I commute via a busy station on the London Underground. The station is on a decent sized road by south London standards (single carriage way, one lane either direction with a shirt stretch of dual carriage way). This road intersects a similar one and has a few side roads.
The station is served by about 11 bus stops; the station has about 35 million people passing through the doors per year, according to TFL. Somtimes I get the bus if it's raining though I avoid it before about half past 9 as the rush hour is tailing off. At that time, the traffic is very heavy but moving. The busses are full but not packed. That means most seats occupied with quite a few people standing but I can usually get a seat somewhere if I share.
Those 11 stops are converged upon by about 24 different bus routes.
Under your scheme you propose replacing those nearly full double decker busses with a fleet of much smaller busses. There is no room on the roads for your proposal, though you seem to dismiss that minor point as "nah".
Also, buses driving around cities have horrible fuel efficiency.
Compared to what? Compared to smaller vehicles, the fuel efficiency per passenger is excellent.
On highway trips the mileage can be OK, but around town they are usually below 4 MPG.
More like 6-8 for the modern, large busses, depending on the route. https://www.busandcoachbuyer.c...
Hybrids and EVs improve this
Many of the busses are already hybrids.
but there's no getting around the fact that they have to spend a lot of energy in acceleration.
That's an argument for large busses not against them. All vehicles get poor MPG in towns due to acceleration and braking. Bigger busses are lighter per passenger.
They're much higher than cars, but they're not much higher than vans.
Yeah they are. A ford transit is 2.9 metres high. A new routemaster is 4.2m high.
And they have the problem that they require high-quality roadways,
They share the same city roadways as artics, dustbin lorries, tipper lorries and so on. So while techincally true, you need god roadways in busy parts of major cities.
which they do lots of damage to.
Yes; but if you want a high density transport system, you're going to incur cost somewhere.
We bought a '99 transit bus and it weighs over 20k pounds empty, some 1500 of that is the engine alone. The rear axle gross is 19k by itself.
A big double decker is about 12T.
Where roadways are not ideal (with lots of room for bus stops and the like) they cause all kinds of traffic problems.
Depends on what you mean by problems: at busy places they ARE the traffic. Anything that gets in the way of busses is what's causing problems.
Since they're huge, they require special service tools and infrastructure.
So do lorries of all sorts.
Literally the only reason we use them over vans in spite of all of these problems is that they reduce the ratio of drivers to passengers
And fuel efficiency. And so you can fit more people on the roads.
Buses are crap and the only reason we use them is that drivers are expensive and it's hard to get rail into places these days.
Depends where you live. There's an excellent bus network in London. Expense of drivers is not by a long way the reason we use buses. They're also a much higher density form of transport than cars. A double decker in rush hour can hold nearly a hundred people and takes up less space than two cars when you take stopping distance into account. It's only a little over 2 when everything's stacked up.
If you visit a major transport hub at rush hour, the number of people arriving by bus is huge. Regardles of the price of drivers, a 6 lane motorway would not be able to deliver people that fast if it was one commuter per car (or even 4) and you don't even hav a dual carriage way available.
Damn. You really are a whiner. Who complains about people knowing the NAMES of the machines? For chrissake.
Quite. He basically comes here and shit talks everything. It's a way some people use to try and sounds smart when they actually know very little at all.
i have two Bialetti Moka pots, a French press and two stove top percolators, one percolator is over 50 years old its a Revereware with a copper bottom,
(one moks pot and a french press here).
Percolators seem to have gone way out of fashion at the moment. My in-laws have a vintage ceramic bodied elecric one. Produces amazing coffee.
Accusations of racism in 3... 2...
Well, the 1 never happened. You get far more whining on slashdot about accusations of racism than you get actual accusations of racism.
This is the one time you will see them (unless your social media account has already been banned) use the argument that free speech is only protected from censorship by governments.
Huh? That's all free speech is and can be. Any more protected and you're infringing on the equally important right people have to not listen.
I am sorry but linking to snopes which has well known problems is b.s. and you know it.
Problems in that it has a strong reality bias. I guess that is a bias if you truly live in a post truth age.
When the real world turns
You don't have a monopoly on what is the "real world". They are as much "real world" as you are.
My roommate ordered those N95 masks through Amazon since we couldn't find a local store that sells them in SF.
Yikes! That's brave. Ordering PPE through Amazon that is. Especially as how amazon do nothing to stop companies selling counterfeit knockoff crap.
I don't know how it is in the US but in the UK you're much better off ordering from an industrial supply company. Similar price (excluding delivery), free next day delivery, and very very unlikely to not meet the requisite regulations. And will come complete with a full datasheet saying precisely what it does protect against.
Suppose that women at my place of work are, on average, worse teammates than men. I get paid by what my team produces. Why shouldn't I refuse to work with women?
Let's suppose what you say is true: that the small number of women you worke closely enough with to judge their work are on average worse team mates than the men. Which presumably means not all of them since we're talking averages.
You're generalising your experience of a few women to the entire population and appear to not be extending the same actions to men.
That's pretty much the textbook definition of sexist.
AI generated books will come off like really poor fanfic with cringe-inducing sex sprinkled throughout.
Isn't cringe-inducing sex one of the main hallmarks of really poor fanfics?
some of it might be accidentally good enough to make it into a literary publications if all of the vogue themes show up;
Seems unlikely: with those metrics, Amazon will most likely attempt to make books that people actually want to read
I cba to click on a youtube link especially when I'm 99% sure you're linking to that interview that I've already seen. It's covered far better here than I could ever cover it:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...
So we still both know you're full of shit. It's funny that you realise you're suposed to need a good reason to hate someone. What's not funy is your desparate attempt at a post-hoc justificaton of your hate. You are prepared to stretch facts to far, far beyond breaking point in order to justify to yourself that your hatred is, well, justified.
Here's a free clue: if you need those mental gymnastics then no your hate isn't justified. You should probably example your motivations but I know you won't.