According to that article, it's only use was to lower water hardness but is an important part food additive.
Softening water performs a cleaning function. The person pushing TSP as a cleaning agent later talks about his issues with hard water. So he's not using it as a cleaning agent, but as a water softener that works with the cleaning agent for a better result.
So the cultural gap isn't about science, but in the discussion of complex multivariate real world problems. A cleaning booster that doesn't actually clean, but softens water so the other cleaning agents work better could be described as a cleaner, or a non-cleaner.
Now you are a lying sack of shit. I never said anything about minimizing only the life inside the car, or preferential treatment of the driver. I stated that the greatest life savings would come from stopping in the shortest distance possible without trying to avoid the obstacle. That you can't understand that doesn't mean it would kill innocents.
It sounds like what you want is a pre-purchase system where you buy life credits. Your daughter is paid up with "insurance" so when the car has the choice of her or 2 bums, it recognizes her, and kills the bums. An elitist dystopian ideal is what you want.
I remember USENET from the '90s. I started on it from college. Every post tagged with my real, traceable, and valid email. There was no anonymity. Some persisted with that, even in less public forums. He was asking for programming help, not necessarily for anything nefarious. At that point, he may not have even realized he was going to do something nefarious with it.
My take: Parallel construction
There's little the FBI couldn't do without a warrant, so parallel construction wouldn't be necessary. The best theory I saw someone else post here is that the FBI knew it was a one-man operation, and sending that message wouldn't make a difference, so instead they were running it, capturing all, and using the intel to go after the little guy trading on Silk Road. Why take down a lone shark, when you can take out the entire ocean?
There's too much horse racing in OZ to not find testosterone easily. Though calling all the vets in the phonebook asking who's willing to deal would probably work out poorly in the end.
Add to that almost all felony arrests are made in traffic stops. People get into the system, often not even knowing it themselves. Then sit dormant until someone runs them and stumbles across it. Police don't go to houses to arrest people. That's too risky, and people who know they are wanted do things like move.
If there was a requirement to notify all wanted people, people who have a silly traffic ticket from 5 years ago they forgot about would deal with it before they get arrested for it. But the police fear that letting someone they aren't looking for that they are wanted would cause them to take more steps to not be found, when nobody would deliberately find them either way.
In many cases, they know exactly where they are, and run contest winner scams to draw them in, assuming they wouldn't come in if told the truth. But the thing is, they never tried, they just assumed all people are evil. Same as when they are pointing a gun at an unarmed person. Sure, they may not have a gun to shoot back, and may not be guilty of whatever they were stopped for, but they are evil, like everyone else, and you kill them then, or they kill you tomorrow. So shoot away, it's best for everyone.
You are presuming anyone was looking for him. I know a guy who simply doesn't pay. He has a job, pays tax to the IRS in his real name. He rents, rather than owning, but doesn't try to live off the grid. The only time he was "caught" was when he was 3 years overdue and an arrest warrant was issued. He was arrested, held until he paid the back payments, then released. He's never made a child support payment, just a jail bond once (or whatever they call it). He's the stereotypical deadbeat dad. No need to hide, nobody's looking.
So we want to make complex buggy code to cater for grey areas, when the best way to minimize loss of life is known and simple? That's not using "emotion", that's just stupid.
40,000 deaths a year without it. Why would the first with it be an issue. Wasn't with airbags. Even when their issue was decapitating babies. Wasn't with ABS, even in situations where ABS was provably worse than locked brakes. Your assertion doesn't match history. Why is it different this time?
Not to mention that the scenarios are usually invalid. Your car, limited to 30 in a residential area with poor visibility and people around, is going 165 mph in that environment. A boy scout troop steps out, and blocks the entire road. What do you do?
You've already lost. The self-driver will identify roaming people and limited visiblility, and slow. When the "a kid steps out in front of you and your choice is come to a complete stop before them under control, or accelerate wildly into the child, killing them and hopefully propelling their skull towards their parent" what would you like it to do? The false dichotomy doesn't improve cars or driving.
Anyway, the answer is always: Stop as fast as you can in your own lane. Do not weave. Chances are they will see you and jump in that direction anyway. So stopping in a straight line will minimize impact speed and not greatly increase the chance of impact. Code that response into law and indemnify the maker/driver.
100 years ago, every sport played off horseback was "football". So baseball has as much claim to the name as soccer does. Soccer is the proper term for it because there are almost no sports played which aren't "football". The foot in football refers to the fact you are standing on your feet, and is irrelevant to what body parts you touch the ball with. Football shouldn't be used because it's ambiguous and improper. It's only used now because the non-English speakers demand English use the non-English term. In English, it's soccer. In Spanish, it's futbol. But that doesn't mean that in English we should call it the same thing. The "F" in FIFA stands for soccer (well, the first one). Like the C in CCCP stands for "union" (well, the first one). The English word and the foreign word don't have to match.
But that drives non-English speakers crazy. Like America. America, without context, in English (including British English) means "The USA". In Spanish, the similar word means "The Americas". And the Spanish speakers like to deliberately mis-translate the Spanish word for The Americas" in order to change English to better match the non-English language. That it's mostly successful at this point with soccer doesn't mean we have to put up with it for the deliberate confusion between America and The Americas.
While interesting, ultimately irrelevant - 90% of the world (...) knows Football as being that sport where you kick around a ball, with your feet.
Football is the name for soccer in most languages, but that 90% of the world is saddled with a mis-translation doesn't mean we need to mis-translate it back to English and perpetuate the error. In English, the correct word for that game is soccer, as decided by the soccer clubs in England (home of English). That more foreigners call it something else doesn't mean we need to change the English word for it. The Chinese call cats "mao" (loosely after the sound a cat makes), but that doesn't mean that since more people call a cat mao than cat, we should change the English word for cat.
The problem I see people have is they pile dishes in the sink. You don't use the sink to wash dishes, why are you filling you sink with them? Empty the dishwasher, then fill the dishwasher up with the dirty dishes as you make them. Don't store them in the sink until you have a load. Store them in the dishwasher.
Faster, cleaner, less power, less water. The dishwasher is superior in every measure.
If someone was pressuring you for a vote, they could follow you to the booth and see if you exited for a fresh one. So the selfie is 100% accurate, so long as you watch them vote.
And I though tankless cared less about hard water, because it pushes the precipitates out to the user, rather than a hot water heater where they collect at the bottom, insulating the tank and increasing the cost to heat. The first house I owned was in Alaska, and the tankless don't work well there. The groundwater is 45F in the middle of summer. For family use, you have to put two tankless in series, and so I just replaced the ancient water heater with another of the same. It's a real shame that the super-efficient boiler (used for heating the house) isn't designed to heat hot water.
Short cycle is 35 mins on a new washer. But the dishes come out wet. The full cycle is 2 hours. But the dishes are always clean without pre-washing, no matter how dirty or old going in.
Spray is higher in my new washer. It uses less water, but higher pressures to wash off as much as possible. Also new washers use more cycles. Each cycle is: water in, circulate until dirty, drain. Repeat. Using more cycles with less water uses less overall water than fewer cycles with more water each.
Sure in a sane world it would use a reliable sensor that determines when it's clean coupled with other things like higher pressure or other things to be more effective while maintaining reliability.
You just described most dishwashers available today. My older top of the line was one of the first with a reliable sensor to determine cleanliness of the wastewater, and it also had a disposer. My low-end 2010 has the sensor, but not the disposer. And the new low-end machine does much better with things like casserole dishes and baked on food. So long as I don't load something that obstructs the spinning cleaner, I've never had to run anything twice. And I've never pre-soaked or pre-cleaned anything. Scrape off the big pieces, and load. Let it sit until full. Run. Quieter, more efficient, and more effective than older top of the line ones. Yes, it takes longer, but you can fix that by pre-cleaning and using the quick cycle that doesn't clean as well, and doesn't dry them.
I grew up with a dishwasher made in the early '50s. It didn't wash anything. It made everything wet, but not much else. Some redistribution of grime occurred, but even that was done poorly.
My '90s machine was a top of the line. But my 2010 low-end dishwasher is still much much better than an '80s or '90s machine.
In the US, the ban was originally for clothes washing powder only. The issue is that the 30% phosphates would make great bomb-making material. But, once it was pointed out that you could just use dishwasher soap, the ban was extended. The Finish tablets are single serving tablets. They are inconvenient to make into bomb making material. You'd have to open or dissolve masses of them to get the same use as a single 5 kg box of clothes washer soap.
The environmental effects were an excuse, not an initial reason. The ban came about with the Iranian terrorism spike, and was related to US domestic terrorism fears, not environmental concerns. Phosphates are still used widely in the US, just more controlled, like for industrial fertilizer and such. The runoff from that greatly eclipsing the domestic use.
It was an aggressive chemical. It was banned because if you dumped a box of it into a bucket of gasoline, you got a nice napalm. The reactivity that made it good bomb making material made it a good cleaner, reacting with things that shouldn't be there, and cleaning them away.
Phosphates are incredibly bad for the environment. There's a reason they were phased out.
Still available in industrial fertilizer. Widely used for that still. Phased out of home use, which had little effect on the environment. A box of phosphate detergent poured into a bucket of gasoline made a good napalm. That's why they were phased out. For their bomb making capabilities. The environment was an excuse when people complained, but certainly not the cause, or they'd have gone after the large users, agriculture. But no, targeted the small uses with easy access.
Detergents are more than plenty powerful enough - they're capable of etching glass if they're too strong (my mother's glasses are all an etched milky-white because for years she's filled the detergent box to capacity.)
correlation isn't causation. Etched glasses is more likely from the water. If it is from the detergent, it's likely a thermostat issue. The temp should be high enough to dissolve all the detergent, preventing it from etching anything. Or, she always bought the cheapest detergent, and it's half sand and filler.
phosphates were banned for a good reason (in most places)
Yeah, a box of old laundry detergent into a bucket of gasoline, and you had a good napalm. That's why it was banned. The environmental reasons made better TV, but the real reason phosphates were banned was that they were easy access to bomb making material. That's why the bomb makers moved to industrial fertilizer. The large amount of phosphates weren't banned there, but were more registered and tracked. The small amount for domestic cleaning was a drop in the bucket compared to the industrial uses.
Not needed. My budget washer (not bottom, but certainly not top) will handle burnt potatoes au gratin without soaking. Just don't run it on the short cycle. Doesn't matter if you wash same day of 6 weeks later. Scrape and wash, no soaking, no pre-cleaning.
Slashdot Mirror
According to that article, it's only use was to lower water hardness but is an important part food additive.
Softening water performs a cleaning function. The person pushing TSP as a cleaning agent later talks about his issues with hard water. So he's not using it as a cleaning agent, but as a water softener that works with the cleaning agent for a better result.
So the cultural gap isn't about science, but in the discussion of complex multivariate real world problems. A cleaning booster that doesn't actually clean, but softens water so the other cleaning agents work better could be described as a cleaner, or a non-cleaner.
Now you are a lying sack of shit. I never said anything about minimizing only the life inside the car, or preferential treatment of the driver. I stated that the greatest life savings would come from stopping in the shortest distance possible without trying to avoid the obstacle. That you can't understand that doesn't mean it would kill innocents.
It sounds like what you want is a pre-purchase system where you buy life credits. Your daughter is paid up with "insurance" so when the car has the choice of her or 2 bums, it recognizes her, and kills the bums. An elitist dystopian ideal is what you want.
My take: Parallel construction
There's little the FBI couldn't do without a warrant, so parallel construction wouldn't be necessary. The best theory I saw someone else post here is that the FBI knew it was a one-man operation, and sending that message wouldn't make a difference, so instead they were running it, capturing all, and using the intel to go after the little guy trading on Silk Road. Why take down a lone shark, when you can take out the entire ocean?
There's too much horse racing in OZ to not find testosterone easily. Though calling all the vets in the phonebook asking who's willing to deal would probably work out poorly in the end.
He reduced the taxpayer burden. Why do you hate an efficient government?
Add to that almost all felony arrests are made in traffic stops. People get into the system, often not even knowing it themselves. Then sit dormant until someone runs them and stumbles across it. Police don't go to houses to arrest people. That's too risky, and people who know they are wanted do things like move.
If there was a requirement to notify all wanted people, people who have a silly traffic ticket from 5 years ago they forgot about would deal with it before they get arrested for it. But the police fear that letting someone they aren't looking for that they are wanted would cause them to take more steps to not be found, when nobody would deliberately find them either way.
In many cases, they know exactly where they are, and run contest winner scams to draw them in, assuming they wouldn't come in if told the truth. But the thing is, they never tried, they just assumed all people are evil. Same as when they are pointing a gun at an unarmed person. Sure, they may not have a gun to shoot back, and may not be guilty of whatever they were stopped for, but they are evil, like everyone else, and you kill them then, or they kill you tomorrow. So shoot away, it's best for everyone.
Thetan?
You are presuming anyone was looking for him. I know a guy who simply doesn't pay. He has a job, pays tax to the IRS in his real name. He rents, rather than owning, but doesn't try to live off the grid. The only time he was "caught" was when he was 3 years overdue and an arrest warrant was issued. He was arrested, held until he paid the back payments, then released. He's never made a child support payment, just a jail bond once (or whatever they call it). He's the stereotypical deadbeat dad. No need to hide, nobody's looking.
So we want to make complex buggy code to cater for grey areas, when the best way to minimize loss of life is known and simple? That's not using "emotion", that's just stupid.
40,000 deaths a year without it. Why would the first with it be an issue. Wasn't with airbags. Even when their issue was decapitating babies. Wasn't with ABS, even in situations where ABS was provably worse than locked brakes. Your assertion doesn't match history. Why is it different this time?
but in the end, accidents happen.
Less than 1% of the time, so anyone looking for a mechanical fault is excusing his own known bad driving.
Not to mention that the scenarios are usually invalid. Your car, limited to 30 in a residential area with poor visibility and people around, is going 165 mph in that environment. A boy scout troop steps out, and blocks the entire road. What do you do?
You've already lost. The self-driver will identify roaming people and limited visiblility, and slow. When the "a kid steps out in front of you and your choice is come to a complete stop before them under control, or accelerate wildly into the child, killing them and hopefully propelling their skull towards their parent" what would you like it to do? The false dichotomy doesn't improve cars or driving.
Anyway, the answer is always: Stop as fast as you can in your own lane. Do not weave. Chances are they will see you and jump in that direction anyway. So stopping in a straight line will minimize impact speed and not greatly increase the chance of impact. Code that response into law and indemnify the maker/driver.
But that drives non-English speakers crazy. Like America. America, without context, in English (including British English) means "The USA". In Spanish, the similar word means "The Americas". And the Spanish speakers like to deliberately mis-translate the Spanish word for The Americas" in order to change English to better match the non-English language. That it's mostly successful at this point with soccer doesn't mean we have to put up with it for the deliberate confusion between America and The Americas.
While interesting, ultimately irrelevant - 90% of the world (...) knows Football as being that sport where you kick around a ball, with your feet.
Football is the name for soccer in most languages, but that 90% of the world is saddled with a mis-translation doesn't mean we need to mis-translate it back to English and perpetuate the error. In English, the correct word for that game is soccer, as decided by the soccer clubs in England (home of English). That more foreigners call it something else doesn't mean we need to change the English word for it. The Chinese call cats "mao" (loosely after the sound a cat makes), but that doesn't mean that since more people call a cat mao than cat, we should change the English word for cat.
The problem I see people have is they pile dishes in the sink. You don't use the sink to wash dishes, why are you filling you sink with them? Empty the dishwasher, then fill the dishwasher up with the dirty dishes as you make them. Don't store them in the sink until you have a load. Store them in the dishwasher.
Faster, cleaner, less power, less water. The dishwasher is superior in every measure.
If someone was pressuring you for a vote, they could follow you to the booth and see if you exited for a fresh one. So the selfie is 100% accurate, so long as you watch them vote.
And I though tankless cared less about hard water, because it pushes the precipitates out to the user, rather than a hot water heater where they collect at the bottom, insulating the tank and increasing the cost to heat. The first house I owned was in Alaska, and the tankless don't work well there. The groundwater is 45F in the middle of summer. For family use, you have to put two tankless in series, and so I just replaced the ancient water heater with another of the same. It's a real shame that the super-efficient boiler (used for heating the house) isn't designed to heat hot water.
Not needed. My crusty old moldy food is washed off just fine with a budget 2010 model.
Short cycle is 35 mins on a new washer. But the dishes come out wet. The full cycle is 2 hours. But the dishes are always clean without pre-washing, no matter how dirty or old going in.
Spray is higher in my new washer. It uses less water, but higher pressures to wash off as much as possible. Also new washers use more cycles. Each cycle is: water in, circulate until dirty, drain. Repeat. Using more cycles with less water uses less overall water than fewer cycles with more water each.
Sure in a sane world it would use a reliable sensor that determines when it's clean coupled with other things like higher pressure or other things to be more effective while maintaining reliability.
You just described most dishwashers available today. My older top of the line was one of the first with a reliable sensor to determine cleanliness of the wastewater, and it also had a disposer. My low-end 2010 has the sensor, but not the disposer. And the new low-end machine does much better with things like casserole dishes and baked on food. So long as I don't load something that obstructs the spinning cleaner, I've never had to run anything twice. And I've never pre-soaked or pre-cleaned anything. Scrape off the big pieces, and load. Let it sit until full. Run. Quieter, more efficient, and more effective than older top of the line ones. Yes, it takes longer, but you can fix that by pre-cleaning and using the quick cycle that doesn't clean as well, and doesn't dry them.
I grew up with a dishwasher made in the early '50s. It didn't wash anything. It made everything wet, but not much else. Some redistribution of grime occurred, but even that was done poorly.
My '90s machine was a top of the line. But my 2010 low-end dishwasher is still much much better than an '80s or '90s machine.
I think you have a false nostalgia.
In the US, the ban was originally for clothes washing powder only. The issue is that the 30% phosphates would make great bomb-making material. But, once it was pointed out that you could just use dishwasher soap, the ban was extended. The Finish tablets are single serving tablets. They are inconvenient to make into bomb making material. You'd have to open or dissolve masses of them to get the same use as a single 5 kg box of clothes washer soap.
The environmental effects were an excuse, not an initial reason. The ban came about with the Iranian terrorism spike, and was related to US domestic terrorism fears, not environmental concerns. Phosphates are still used widely in the US, just more controlled, like for industrial fertilizer and such. The runoff from that greatly eclipsing the domestic use.
It was an aggressive chemical. It was banned because if you dumped a box of it into a bucket of gasoline, you got a nice napalm. The reactivity that made it good bomb making material made it a good cleaner, reacting with things that shouldn't be there, and cleaning them away.
Phosphates are incredibly bad for the environment. There's a reason they were phased out.
Still available in industrial fertilizer. Widely used for that still. Phased out of home use, which had little effect on the environment. A box of phosphate detergent poured into a bucket of gasoline made a good napalm. That's why they were phased out. For their bomb making capabilities. The environment was an excuse when people complained, but certainly not the cause, or they'd have gone after the large users, agriculture. But no, targeted the small uses with easy access.
Detergents are more than plenty powerful enough - they're capable of etching glass if they're too strong (my mother's glasses are all an etched milky-white because for years she's filled the detergent box to capacity.)
correlation isn't causation. Etched glasses is more likely from the water. If it is from the detergent, it's likely a thermostat issue. The temp should be high enough to dissolve all the detergent, preventing it from etching anything. Or, she always bought the cheapest detergent, and it's half sand and filler.
phosphates were banned for a good reason (in most places)
Yeah, a box of old laundry detergent into a bucket of gasoline, and you had a good napalm. That's why it was banned. The environmental reasons made better TV, but the real reason phosphates were banned was that they were easy access to bomb making material. That's why the bomb makers moved to industrial fertilizer. The large amount of phosphates weren't banned there, but were more registered and tracked. The small amount for domestic cleaning was a drop in the bucket compared to the industrial uses.
Not needed. My budget washer (not bottom, but certainly not top) will handle burnt potatoes au gratin without soaking. Just don't run it on the short cycle. Doesn't matter if you wash same day of 6 weeks later. Scrape and wash, no soaking, no pre-cleaning.