The power factor has to do with the loss of the grid. Either get a superconductive grid or your SOL. It's not like incandescents are going to only use unhindered grid power.
And these aren't super efficient. They are less than half as efficient as CFLs. CFLs are going to be replaced by LEDs in the next few decades. Burning tungsten isn't going to win... ever.
to kill all humans. Does that make the skynet ideas any more logical or reasonable if I make it kill people. Just push it towards autonomy self-replication and murder.
What does that do to everybody's likelihood calculations?
You used a very redundant joke. Turn in your department of redundancy department comedy card and (don't\s)?let the door hit you(r)? (on\syour\s\.+)? on the way out.
R&D in basic science pays for itself in increased revenue several fold. Basic science several hundred folds in increased production. We wouldn't be making a damn thing if not for science, and most of the planet would have starved. While it certainly is the case that we're strapped for cash right now, investing in science is investing in our future.
"You could argue that it's similar to murder -- no one argues that we have a right to kill people."
Actually a number of philosophers started from this principle. And generally conclude that it's acceptable to surrender this right in order to not be killed. Your right to kill people is given up in Hobbes' social contract, leads to a contradiction in Kant's universal maxim, and does not provide the greatest good to the greatest number within utilitarianism. However, it's not uncommon to find people arguing that you have a right to murder and that the people give up this right in order to be safe.
When applied to copyright law, is it actually worth it. You give up the right to copy works so that some people can make more money. The general idea is that people will stop producing if don't give the companies that own the rights to the content a significant chunk of change. However, on the flip side, Shakespeare wrote in a time when copyrights were unheard of and intellectual property was scribbled down by theater-goers for other establishments. -- This is where many of our copies come from.
Coal burns all the way through. You get so much CO2 in the air and so much ash for every bit you burn. There's no changing that. It's conservation of matter. You could catch the CO2, but then it just screws up the ground water table and doesn't really help, because nobody would do it and it just adds another storage problem (we see how well they store the ash).
Out of curiosity are you a cleverly constructed parody of a dumb ass or a real one. Real ones typically aren't that dumb.
Get a ten pound plant with a couple buds. That's ten pounds of high grade marijuana in cop world. I've bothered to reverse engineer some of the math too, it's pretty amusing.
No. He's been blind a while. Even with people with transplants to completely restore vision take a while to be able to see. Just as cochlear implants take some time to make use of. The point you should take to heart is that eyes don't see, the brain sees. The device restores the sense triggering in his eye. That's a requirement for sight but none of the work. It's like fixing a camera lens and ignoring the fact that that camera itself doesn't have any firmware.
He won't instantly have his vision restored. This is why people are supposing his vision will continue to improve. It isn't because the device is going to start working better but because his brain is going to keep wiring up better and better.
Which brings us to Prozac which has actually shown itself to help with the plasticity of the visual centers of the brain. This is also why the original post noted that you should have a younger brain (more plasticity).
Better yet, get the man some Prozac. I figure a lot of his lack of sight is due to his brain not wired up properly rather the lack of input. Prozac has shown some ability to restore optic plasticity for individuals.
Unlike sex, I'm sure violence has is at least doable. I played sextris for a bit but the game was ultimately unplayable. Not because using nude people tetris pieces was somehow demeaning or unseemly but because of the overly prudish interpretation of what kind of couplings would get rid of the piece. -- Those are fine sex positions for lesbian fetishists, dumbass game!
I should go code up a violent tetris. One you take out a row it should turn into blood and flow out with realistic fluid dynamics. Getting a tetris would drench the board.
I've encountered that crap. It's mean. It infects the security center and every time you manage to rip it apart and trash the files, security center brings it back to life and runs some more of the infected files to warn you that the software has now been disabled.
"Of course it was disabled, it's malware you ignorant piece of crap!" The problem was that Microsoft created a special place for the malware to infect so that it was way harder to dislodge than other malware. Usually hijackthis and a few scans is enough to fix anything. But, not that... nope.
I think it's one of those cases where Microsoft should pat itself on the back for fixing a tiny problem that they themselves caused. They deserve all the acclaim they get. Does anybody recall how fantastic Windows 2000 was? You'd switch from ME to 2000 and you'd be astounded! It's been up for three weeks straight without crashing!!!!
I haven't changed a lightbulb in at least five, and even that was because somebody hit it with a broom handle. I don't remember much from when I was a kid but those other types of lights would die every now and then.
How likely is that conspiracy theory? I mean does *anybody* actually own Star Office? And if they did, what feature could it possible have that Open Office doesn't? In fact other than worthless bloat what does OO.o lack period? Microsoft Office finished in 98 or so, and just adds bloat. OO.o is to that point now.
The hidden microphone picks up your boss saying "You're going to be there for the meeting" and spookily displays on the screen "Your snow fling tuba hair forte meeting!"
I never had an issue with discrete math and have no qualms teaching the basic bits of that the lower levels. While it serves as the basis for some of the base underlying theory for actual computer science, calculus and the other stuff we teach is demonstratively unused unless we're going to teach them physics (which we do without the background in calc).
The advantages of SSD outweigh the disadvantages, especially for laptops. You have no moving parts so you'll get longer battery times (though the monitor is still the real hog there) much faster read and write times. The costs will continue to freefall while the capacities continue to shoot upwards. You only need to store your programs on the drive and anything where different run times might matter. The price per gig is still the domain of platter media but the read and write speed, size, power consumption, noise, and simplicity is already in the hands of SSD.
This would be similar to the setup many people have currently with a few raided raptors for the programs and then a bunch of massive but slow secondary drives for media. It's another step in the speed hierarchy of slower speed and larger media.
If you look at the rate of data increase thumb drives have made in the last couple years and compare that to hard drives you'll see that the rate of increase is such that SSD is going to surpass platter in short order. I'd bet my 4 gig thumb drive on it! Which is only worth about 8 bucks now (still have one new in package), and shouldn't even be worth manufacturing in a year or so.
Sometimes the (non-science) environmentalists are overzelous and try to sell this argument. The fact is everything currently takes brown energy to produce so if you're making a nuclear power plant, that's brown energy because it takes carbon-based work to make the fuel.
Solar panels? Those are brown energy because the wafers and cells take carbon-energy to produce.
Electric cars? Those are brown energy because it takes brown energy to make the battery.
It's true, but really it's false. The energy produced, saved, converted, etc causes a net drop in the amount of brown energy we use and lets us stop. I suppose the idea is that we should somehow stop using energy all together or somehow magically convert to a green economy without using our current brown infrastructure. It's factually true, but inherently dishonest and despicable rhetoric.
Yes. In fact, those kinds of interactions are trivial. Individuals who are homozygous for CCR5 delta-32 do not tend to suffer from a vast array of different very fatal diseases, in a rare number of cases. This is certainly genetic.
The reason for this is that delta-32s are immune to HIV and HIV eats up the immune system causing a collapse and allowing a secondary set of infections take hold and inflict death. That isn't genetic.
Acne is caused by a bacteria and yet runs in families as well. 1 factor = 1 disease is a poor way of looking at things in pathology.
If there were a gene for Alzheimers that directly coded for the disease it would get weeded out rather quickly. The truth is far more complex and figuring it out is a major step in curing it.
Slashdot Mirror
The power factor has to do with the loss of the grid. Either get a superconductive grid or your SOL. It's not like incandescents are going to only use unhindered grid power.
And these aren't super efficient. They are less than half as efficient as CFLs. CFLs are going to be replaced by LEDs in the next few decades. Burning tungsten isn't going to win... ever.
This somehow just rings of idiotic propaganda.
to kill all humans. Does that make the skynet ideas any more logical or reasonable if I make it kill people. Just push it towards autonomy self-replication and murder.
What does that do to everybody's likelihood calculations?
I'm glad you got marked troll. Like 90% of us were coming here to make the exact same joke and now we know how the response would have been.
You used a very redundant joke. Turn in your department of redundancy department comedy card and (don't\s)?let the door hit you(r)? (on\syour\s\.+)? on the way out.
R&D in basic science pays for itself in increased revenue several fold. Basic science several hundred folds in increased production. We wouldn't be making a damn thing if not for science, and most of the planet would have starved. While it certainly is the case that we're strapped for cash right now, investing in science is investing in our future.
Pah, flamebait my ass.
"You could argue that it's similar to murder -- no one argues that we have a right to kill people."
Actually a number of philosophers started from this principle. And generally conclude that it's acceptable to surrender this right in order to not be killed. Your right to kill people is given up in Hobbes' social contract, leads to a contradiction in Kant's universal maxim, and does not provide the greatest good to the greatest number within utilitarianism. However, it's not uncommon to find people arguing that you have a right to murder and that the people give up this right in order to be safe.
When applied to copyright law, is it actually worth it. You give up the right to copy works so that some people can make more money. The general idea is that people will stop producing if don't give the companies that own the rights to the content a significant chunk of change. However, on the flip side, Shakespeare wrote in a time when copyrights were unheard of and intellectual property was scribbled down by theater-goers for other establishments. -- This is where many of our copies come from.
A slight variation of Ford's old motto.
Coal burns all the way through. You get so much CO2 in the air and so much ash for every bit you burn. There's no changing that. It's conservation of matter. You could catch the CO2, but then it just screws up the ground water table and doesn't really help, because nobody would do it and it just adds another storage problem (we see how well they store the ash).
Out of curiosity are you a cleverly constructed parody of a dumb ass or a real one. Real ones typically aren't that dumb.
Get a ten pound plant with a couple buds. That's ten pounds of high grade marijuana in cop world. I've bothered to reverse engineer some of the math too, it's pretty amusing.
No. He's been blind a while. Even with people with transplants to completely restore vision take a while to be able to see. Just as cochlear implants take some time to make use of. The point you should take to heart is that eyes don't see, the brain sees. The device restores the sense triggering in his eye. That's a requirement for sight but none of the work. It's like fixing a camera lens and ignoring the fact that that camera itself doesn't have any firmware.
He won't instantly have his vision restored. This is why people are supposing his vision will continue to improve. It isn't because the device is going to start working better but because his brain is going to keep wiring up better and better.
Which brings us to Prozac which has actually shown itself to help with the plasticity of the visual centers of the brain. This is also why the original post noted that you should have a younger brain (more plasticity).
Better yet, get the man some Prozac. I figure a lot of his lack of sight is due to his brain not wired up properly rather the lack of input. Prozac has shown some ability to restore optic plasticity for individuals.
Unlike sex, I'm sure violence has is at least doable. I played sextris for a bit but the game was ultimately unplayable. Not because using nude people tetris pieces was somehow demeaning or unseemly but because of the overly prudish interpretation of what kind of couplings would get rid of the piece. -- Those are fine sex positions for lesbian fetishists, dumbass game!
I should go code up a violent tetris. One you take out a row it should turn into blood and flow out with realistic fluid dynamics. Getting a tetris would drench the board.
I've encountered that crap. It's mean. It infects the security center and every time you manage to rip it apart and trash the files, security center brings it back to life and runs some more of the infected files to warn you that the software has now been disabled.
"Of course it was disabled, it's malware you ignorant piece of crap!" The problem was that Microsoft created a special place for the malware to infect so that it was way harder to dislodge than other malware. Usually hijackthis and a few scans is enough to fix anything. But, not that... nope.
I think it's one of those cases where Microsoft should pat itself on the back for fixing a tiny problem that they themselves caused. They deserve all the acclaim they get. Does anybody recall how fantastic Windows 2000 was? You'd switch from ME to 2000 and you'd be astounded! It's been up for three weeks straight without crashing!!!!
Bravo Microsoft.
Why would I do it recently? My bulbs are the same bulbs I've had for a decade?
I have had the CFL in my hallway for 15 years.
I haven't changed a lightbulb in at least five, and even that was because somebody hit it with a broom handle. I don't remember much from when I was a kid but those other types of lights would die every now and then.
You're doing it wrong.
How likely is that conspiracy theory? I mean does *anybody* actually own Star Office? And if they did, what feature could it possible have that Open Office doesn't? In fact other than worthless bloat what does OO.o lack period? Microsoft Office finished in 98 or so, and just adds bloat. OO.o is to that point now.
There's such a thing as finished software.
The hidden microphone picks up your boss saying "You're going to be there for the meeting" and spookily displays on the screen "Your snow fling tuba hair forte meeting!"
I never had an issue with discrete math and have no qualms teaching the basic bits of that the lower levels. While it serves as the basis for some of the base underlying theory for actual computer science, calculus and the other stuff we teach is demonstratively unused unless we're going to teach them physics (which we do without the background in calc).
It's only a flesh wound!
The advantages of SSD outweigh the disadvantages, especially for laptops. You have no moving parts so you'll get longer battery times (though the monitor is still the real hog there) much faster read and write times. The costs will continue to freefall while the capacities continue to shoot upwards. You only need to store your programs on the drive and anything where different run times might matter. The price per gig is still the domain of platter media but the read and write speed, size, power consumption, noise, and simplicity is already in the hands of SSD.
This would be similar to the setup many people have currently with a few raided raptors for the programs and then a bunch of massive but slow secondary drives for media. It's another step in the speed hierarchy of slower speed and larger media.
If you look at the rate of data increase thumb drives have made in the last couple years and compare that to hard drives you'll see that the rate of increase is such that SSD is going to surpass platter in short order. I'd bet my 4 gig thumb drive on it! Which is only worth about 8 bucks now (still have one new in package), and shouldn't even be worth manufacturing in a year or so.
Turn off the sun! We have all the solar and wind we'll ever need. Nuclear is a complete failure.
Sometimes the (non-science) environmentalists are overzelous and try to sell this argument. The fact is everything currently takes brown energy to produce so if you're making a nuclear power plant, that's brown energy because it takes carbon-based work to make the fuel.
Solar panels? Those are brown energy because the wafers and cells take carbon-energy to produce.
Electric cars? Those are brown energy because it takes brown energy to make the battery.
It's true, but really it's false. The energy produced, saved, converted, etc causes a net drop in the amount of brown energy we use and lets us stop. I suppose the idea is that we should somehow stop using energy all together or somehow magically convert to a green economy without using our current brown infrastructure. It's factually true, but inherently dishonest and despicable rhetoric.
In the future they are going to invent the browser without bloat stealing it from Chrome and Firefox 1.0.
Yes. In fact, those kinds of interactions are trivial. Individuals who are homozygous for CCR5 delta-32 do not tend to suffer from a vast array of different very fatal diseases, in a rare number of cases. This is certainly genetic.
The reason for this is that delta-32s are immune to HIV and HIV eats up the immune system causing a collapse and allowing a secondary set of infections take hold and inflict death. That isn't genetic.
Acne is caused by a bacteria and yet runs in families as well. 1 factor = 1 disease is a poor way of looking at things in pathology.
If there were a gene for Alzheimers that directly coded for the disease it would get weeded out rather quickly. The truth is far more complex and figuring it out is a major step in curing it.