Pretty much everyone has used a standard of 96 pixels per inch for screen displays since Windows chose it as an assumption many years ago. Your setup sounds like it's probably around 110PPI -- around 15% too high.
Trust me, it's far easier not to fight on this one.
The problem with "ten times cheaper" is that you're going the opposite direction, and do NOT know what you're comparing the more expensive item to when you call it cheap, nor the second item when you call it cheaper still.
Sure you do. It's still zero. "Pricier" would be a multiple farther (which is to say, a multiple of the distance) from zero; "cheaper" would be a multiple closer (which is to say, a fraction of the distance) to zero.
So what is your point? That because there are devices that use more energy than light bulbs, everyone should refrain from upgrading light bulbs and the technology behind them?
Gee, sorry if the progress offended you, we'll make sure to prohibit further work on it from now on.
Oh, I did. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions. There, I see that a 10MT weapon, using the cube-root curve, gives a "urban areas completely leveled" radius of about 5.1km. Not 200-300m; 5100m. Granted, roads and rails are already fairly level, but if you can wipe out a 5.1 km circle of supply and production, you don't need to cut any supply line -- there's no supply left anyway (not to mention trucks and rail cars).
No, they won't end the world (tangent: nuclear winter theory, btw, was debunked and withdrawn by its proponents), or even render a country the size of the USA or Russia uninhabitable/in the stone age.
I'd say with most of the population, manufacturing, and shipping wiped out, yeah, it's pretty much back to the stone age. And where are you getting this garbage about nuclear winter theory being "debunked" and "withdrawn"? I see nothing like that anywhere, except from sources with strong biases toward minimizing the danger.
In short: which defense contractor do you work for?
By your criteria, it is impossible to use any comparative adjective at all in a multiplicative comparison: "N times faster than", "N times more expensive than", "N times more massive than" -- all disallowed. Seems self-defeatingly pedantic. To insist that "N times faster than" means something different from "N times as fast as" is willful misunderstanding of the purest kind.
To say that A is cheap implies that it is so, compared to something else that is more expensive. How much more so? Twice as much? A million times as much?
See, here's your problem. You're requiring that "cheaper" be a known factor all by itself, when this is completely unnecessary for the phrase "N times cheaper than" to have any meaning at all. It doesn't matter what A is cheap in comparison with -- however cheap it is in comparison to anything, B is ten times as cheap as A is in comparison to that thing too.
That's what an absolute scale means in the first place. A is cheaper than some unspecified standard S, which is to say, you can buy N times more As than you can Ss for the same money; B is cheaper than S, which is to say you can buy M times more Bs than you can Ss for the same money; furthermore, M is ten times what N is; therefore B is said to be 10 times cheaper than A. You're insisting on knowing what S is, when this is irrelevant to the assertion being made.
Or: you may be requiring that "cheaper" only be expressed as an arithmetical comparison and never a multiplicative one. Is it that you are defining "cheaper" to only return "dollars" (or other currency) as a unit, and never "percent" or "times" (unitless factors)? In this case, you're just missing the function overloads the rest of us have. There's even another commonly-used overload beyond that: exponential comparison. Watch out for "A is two orders of magnitude cheaper than B" -- you might get an aneurysm.
to use a multiplier ("ten times"), you have to multiply something by ten. So what is it? You can't say that B is ten times less than A, because that doesn't make any grammatical or conceptual sense
I disagree completely. What you're multiplying by ten is...wait for it...the denominator. I can get 12 As for a dollar, but I can get 120 Bs for a dollar, therefore B is ten times as cheap as A: I can get ten times as many of them for the same money.
I truly fail to see the difficulty you're having with the concept.
The crimes people unfortunately call "hate crimes" are not about the fact that the person committing the crime hates. They're about the fact that the crime is intended to terrify a whole class of people. They should more properly be called "terrorism".
It's clearly a misunderstanding of what crime is. Some people remember that a crime is when you harm someone. Others think a crime is when you do something they don't like.
If you don't like cap and trade, then what would you suggest should replace it?
A direct CO2 tax.
There's no need for all this pussyfooting around with setting up an artificial market to please the everything-must-be-a-market fetishists -- and enable the corporations to collect the revenues instead of the people. It's all intended to be Goldman Sachs's next bubble, anyway.
Whether you are selling automobiles or donuts, there is going to be competition, and if you're publicly funded you are only as good as your last quarterly earnings report.
Unions are about getting money for people at the expense of the business, not saving the business money.
Yes, and the business is about getting money for itself at the expense of anyone it can, including the employees, not treating employees fairly. What's your point?
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty much everyone has used a standard of 96 pixels per inch for screen displays since Windows chose it as an assumption many years ago. Your setup sounds like it's probably around 110PPI -- around 15% too high.
Trust me, it's far easier not to fight on this one.
Sure you do. It's still zero. "Pricier" would be a multiple farther (which is to say, a multiple of the distance) from zero; "cheaper" would be a multiple closer (which is to say, a fraction of the distance) to zero.
The government would have the cheap supply too.
So it's ok to allow wrong as long as everyone else is too?
Hm, that link is messed up. Let's try again:
http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/steve-chu-in-rs.pdf
Then you'll be gratified to know that our new Nobel-laureate Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, has already done exactly this.
ksjtracker.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/steve-chu-in-rs.pdf (PDF)
For the overly impatient: search for "hydrogen" and read the context. Then do the same for "electric". For everyone else, read the whole thing.
So what is your point? That because there are devices that use more energy than light bulbs, everyone should refrain from upgrading light bulbs and the technology behind them?
Gee, sorry if the progress offended you, we'll make sure to prohibit further work on it from now on.
I'm surprised the government there didn't make reduced-price (or free) local supply a condition of the extraction permits.
Which is why you either (1) make that illegal or (2) create a counterbalancing tax so it doesn't benefit them to do so.
I don't know why people think it right and natural that companies automatically get to do whatever the hell they want in our country.
Oh, I did. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions. There, I see that a 10MT weapon, using the cube-root curve, gives a "urban areas completely leveled" radius of about 5.1km. Not 200-300m; 5100m. Granted, roads and rails are already fairly level, but if you can wipe out a 5.1 km circle of supply and production, you don't need to cut any supply line -- there's no supply left anyway (not to mention trucks and rail cars).
I'd say with most of the population, manufacturing, and shipping wiped out, yeah, it's pretty much back to the stone age. And where are you getting this garbage about nuclear winter theory being "debunked" and "withdrawn"? I see nothing like that anywhere, except from sources with strong biases toward minimizing the danger.
In short: which defense contractor do you work for?
I am not familiar with the type of thing I am reading here.
In other words, your well-reasoned and clearly-articulated arguments were falling on deaf ears when people saw the username "AwSumDood69"?
Joke's on that Hummer -- it'll be shattered by the massive hydrogen explosion.
It is driving me up the wall that an article page looks different if you go to it from the front page vs. hitting the headline embedded in the display controls. One goes to http://foo.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=yy/mm/dd/idnumber and the other goes to http://foo.slashdot.org/story/yy/mm/dd/idnumber/Hyphenated-Article-Title . And the latter sucks.
Those crafty socialist bastards! Enjoying a high standard of living and getting loads of free time? Must be a plot, I tells ya...
By your criteria, it is impossible to use any comparative adjective at all in a multiplicative comparison: "N times faster than", "N times more expensive than", "N times more massive than" -- all disallowed. Seems self-defeatingly pedantic. To insist that "N times faster than" means something different from "N times as fast as" is willful misunderstanding of the purest kind.
See, here's your problem. You're requiring that "cheaper" be a known factor all by itself, when this is completely unnecessary for the phrase "N times cheaper than" to have any meaning at all. It doesn't matter what A is cheap in comparison with -- however cheap it is in comparison to anything, B is ten times as cheap as A is in comparison to that thing too.
That's what an absolute scale means in the first place. A is cheaper than some unspecified standard S, which is to say, you can buy N times more As than you can Ss for the same money; B is cheaper than S, which is to say you can buy M times more Bs than you can Ss for the same money; furthermore, M is ten times what N is; therefore B is said to be 10 times cheaper than A. You're insisting on knowing what S is, when this is irrelevant to the assertion being made.
Or: you may be requiring that "cheaper" only be expressed as an arithmetical comparison and never a multiplicative one. Is it that you are defining "cheaper" to only return "dollars" (or other currency) as a unit, and never "percent" or "times" (unitless factors)? In this case, you're just missing the function overloads the rest of us have. There's even another commonly-used overload beyond that: exponential comparison. Watch out for "A is two orders of magnitude cheaper than B" -- you might get an aneurysm.
I disagree completely. What you're multiplying by ten is...wait for it...the denominator. I can get 12 As for a dollar, but I can get 120 Bs for a dollar, therefore B is ten times as cheap as A: I can get ten times as many of them for the same money.
I truly fail to see the difficulty you're having with the concept.
Here we go again.
The crimes people unfortunately call "hate crimes" are not about the fact that the person committing the crime hates. They're about the fact that the crime is intended to terrify a whole class of people. They should more properly be called "terrorism".
It's clearly a misunderstanding of what crime is. Some people remember that a crime is when you harm someone. Others think a crime is when you do something they don't like.
A direct CO2 tax.
There's no need for all this pussyfooting around with setting up an artificial market to please the everything-must-be-a-market fetishists -- and enable the corporations to collect the revenues instead of the people. It's all intended to be Goldman Sachs's next bubble, anyway.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine/print
Fixed that for you.
Silly Slashdotter! How are we going to be insufferable pedants that way?
I'm having trouble processing what that means -- are you saying that C costs 1/20 what A does? Or 1/10?
Furthermore, none of that makes sense unless you accept the concept of "N times less" as stated in the headline in the first place.
I really don't see the problem, in fact. If "N times more" is acceptable, then surely "N times less" must be, too.
Yes, and the business is about getting money for itself at the expense of anyone it can, including the employees, not treating employees fairly. What's your point?
Report for re-Ned-ucation, citizen, on the doubly-ubbly!