You can google it. The "result" is a minor burn caused by the heating from the MRI. That's all, and it's not even consistent. Some with tattoos have no reaction, others with the same pigment will. The shape of the tattoo has an effect.
Just be more clear. One's made by white people. That one's ok. The other's made by yellow people. That's not ok. Got it. No need to pretend anything else.
Or the have two products that are free because one is more "secure" with more false positives, and the other is more "permissive" because some people only want "hits" when it's a real virus, not the more generic hits when it detects a nonvirus, like a kegen. As for the mixup for which was provided, did the reviewer use a native Chinese speaker to discuss the versions and which is delivered? It may have been a simple miscommunication on the default config, not malicious.
It takes less than that. If you want to escape Mercury, you'd need to go Mercury's escape velocity parallel to the orbit, or greater if headed away from the sun, and less if headed towards the sun. So to burn up in the sun would be less than the stated or free-body calculated Mercury escape velocity. Also, the number is reduced because the calculated number is related to from a rest at the surface, not for something already moving in orbit. It wouldn't take nearly that much more velocity to end up orbiting the sun, or smashing into it, if you were already moving and in orbit.
Network Neutrality conflates two issues: Traffic management and anticompetitive behavior. Some packets SHOULD be treated differently than others, in order to make diverse services "play well together". (Example: Streaming vs. File Download.)
All net-neutrality rules officially presented allow for network QoS of all kinds. Prioritizing VoIP above FTP is allowed in all net-neutrality rules. What's not allowed is prioritizing *your* VoIP over your competitor's VoIP.
Also allowed under all net neutrality is blocking P2P, and various other QoS schemes, so long as they are not explicitly anti-competitive.
Yes, it should be the FTC doing the enforcement, but the FTC doesn't understand the issue. The FCC is tasked with understanding the problem. The Justice Department, working with both the FTC and FCC should do the enforcement. Maybe the FCC could write the rules, and hand them to the FTC. But having the FTC write the rules will end up with the bad rules everyone claims are what Net Neutrality is.
The FCC is using this as a power-grab on the Internet, in direct contravention of Congress' authorization.
The FCC is chartered to regulate communications. That's what the first "c" stands for in the name. The Internet is Communication. So it seems quite in-line with the goals and purpose of the organization.
There are trial systems for car batteries. You can change a car's batteries (for specific prototypes) resulting in an energy transfer rate faster than liquid fuel. You drive on a special changer, the old battery is disconnected and drops out the bottom, and a new one is fitted in place. I've seen the videos, so I'm sure you can google it.
I flew Christmas Eve in about 1993 from Boston to Dallas, and there were more flight attendants than passengers. "We are suspending all service on this flight. If you want something, just ask." Most everyone pulled up the armrests in the middle row, and laid across middle seats to sleep on the empty plane.
I've not seen many people tattoo the tips of their fingers. And I've never seen EMS use any other kind of device to take pulse ox readings. A full on hospital will still use a fingertip pulse ox reader for the ox, but will get the pulse from an EKG. EKGs are much more common now that they don't need paper and a printer, but store the reading digitally, which give instant feedback, as well as the ability to play back later.
But even then, tattoos often have metal in the pigment,so would that change in conductivity mess up an EKG, given a large chest tattoo with iron in the pigment?
Neo-Liberalism is a conservative philosophy that's linked to laissez faire. At least that's how I've always seen it used, as a pejorative for conservatives who are (presumably falsely) claiming centrism.
It's the right wing party and the righter-wing branch of the same party. Or change who is the branch.
I'm a centrist. When I'm in a more liberal country, people call me a conservative. When people attack me on Slashdot, I'm called liberal and conservative with about the same frequency, just changes based on topic (though, yes, a little more "liberal" than "conservative" because this is a US site, and the middle is seen as liberal).
Pick almost ANY topic and the parties are going to take polar opposite views of it.
They keep the discussion about abortion and gays so that nobody notices that police abuses of minorities are the same in Democratic areas as Republican ones. Or they argue about taxes while both parties increase spending. Republicans pass ACA at the state level, and oppose it at the federal level, but reverse their position on state vs federal power when it comes to gay marriage. The point is to always be arguing so nobody is watching what the other hand is doing. It's a magic act designed to deceive the population.
That's the clear result of this bill. The Conservatives are so focused on getting what they want, that they refuse to consider any side effects. They are trying a back-door funding block to AGW studies that instead will end many medical studies. And pointing it out gets me attacked, which doens't harm my credibility, but proves my point.
The study should be available, but many health studies are done with non-anonymized "raw" data. To require the "raw" data be made available would break other laws on privacy, HIPAA, and such.
So the effect is that this law would end various types of health research. The Conservatives would end all research into heart disease just to stop $10 going to AGW studies. That's why it needs debate.
By your standard, banning lead in gasoline was a junk decision. But subsequent studies showed that the level of damage the EPA presumed was below the actual damage. Sometimes it's best to act from our best guess, even if we can't substantiate it properly at that point. It's right more than it's wrong.
Citation? TFB (The Fucking Bill). I've read it. The "openness" required would ban funding most analysis science, and that's the type used for long-term health studies and climate. The Conservatives are happy to kill innocents to push their personal opinion as law. They are so afraid of AGW that blocking most medical research wouldn't matter to them.
You act like you haven't read the bill. Or you don't know how studies are done.
The wording would make new analysis of 3rd party data illegal. It would shut down lots of legitimate science that's done on license. You can verify it, but you have to pay for access to the data. If this was a budget bill increasing funding for research that would "buy" the data from private sources, that would be good, and undebatable. But for something designed to limit science and reduce learning, there is room for debate.
And that is the "conservative" argument against schools, but why doesn't that apply to the Military Industrial Complex? A greater percentage of a jet goes to lobbying than that spent on schools, yet we need to cut schools because they are corrupt, and buy more fighters.
There is an obvious conflict of interest where [military contractors] can use their political power to extract more public funds from elected governments. In turn, their revenue is dependent on the amount of public funds they can extract. It's a built in incentive to steal as much as they can from the public.
Go on, read your words. Why do I see the conservatives hate on schools and love the military? When the reasons they hate schools are the reasons they love the military?
There are a few things we currently do with excess power, the ideal option is to store it until we need it, such as with compressed air in salt caverns.
I've visited a power generation plant in China. They have reverse-peak problems. They don't have enough peak generation, so they use base-load above base load. That means they have over-production in low use times. So every night, they pump water up hill. And when they need peak power, they use the uphill water to generate electricity.
There are plenty of ways to store electricity. The "problem" is that the peak price of power is now too low to make it worth while for Germany to recover "lost" power.
So you only have ever been in places where jaywalking is illegal? I don't live in Alaska anymore, but I currently lice in a place where jaywalking is explicitly legal. And, aside from a place like NYC, almost nowhere has 100% of intersections controlled.
Your argument is that your house is property of the US federal government, since all land outside the original 13 colonies,Texas, and a few other exceptions was once "public land", and once it's been touched, it's forever tainted.
That wasn't a statement from a "historian" but from the former head of the Mormon church.
OK, so a revisionist advocate for the cause. Better?
Its kind of amusing that you think wikipedia.org would be more relevant on this issue than mormon.org.
And quite depressing that you find mormon.org to be more impartial than Wikipedia (and its cites).
Have you thought about contacting the Mormon church to inform it how wrong it is on its position banning polygamy?
Why would I do that. You presume that me correcting you on wrong facts has any bearing on what I think about those facts. The fact is that the Mormons were founded on polygamy. They have also been unable to shake that stigma, no matter how hard they try
They were founded on polygamy. They practiced it for a while, until government pressure helped end it. They don't practice it anymore. Because the government crushed their religious freedom, back in the '80s (1880s).
A single person boycotting for obscure and unpopular reasons will have no effect on the bottom line of a company. I remember when the 7th day adventists organized a "large" boycott of Chrysler. Had something to do with animal products in the lube used in the cars. Chrysler's official response was "we don't care", though some time later, they complied with the requests, but I don't remember how many years that was. In the mean time, Chrysler gained market share while being boycotted by a whole lot more than one Internet nutjob.
Slashdot Mirror
You can google it. The "result" is a minor burn caused by the heating from the MRI. That's all, and it's not even consistent. Some with tattoos have no reaction, others with the same pigment will. The shape of the tattoo has an effect.
Just be more clear. One's made by white people. That one's ok. The other's made by yellow people. That's not ok. Got it. No need to pretend anything else.
Or the have two products that are free because one is more "secure" with more false positives, and the other is more "permissive" because some people only want "hits" when it's a real virus, not the more generic hits when it detects a nonvirus, like a kegen. As for the mixup for which was provided, did the reviewer use a native Chinese speaker to discuss the versions and which is delivered? It may have been a simple miscommunication on the default config, not malicious.
So it's the same as McAfee and Norton?
It takes less than that. If you want to escape Mercury, you'd need to go Mercury's escape velocity parallel to the orbit, or greater if headed away from the sun, and less if headed towards the sun. So to burn up in the sun would be less than the stated or free-body calculated Mercury escape velocity. Also, the number is reduced because the calculated number is related to from a rest at the surface, not for something already moving in orbit. It wouldn't take nearly that much more velocity to end up orbiting the sun, or smashing into it, if you were already moving and in orbit.
Except they are NOT getting away with it ...
Until you can name an FBI agent or administrator in prison, they *are* getting away with it.
Network Neutrality conflates two issues: Traffic management and anticompetitive behavior. Some packets SHOULD be treated differently than others, in order to make diverse services "play well together". (Example: Streaming vs. File Download.)
All net-neutrality rules officially presented allow for network QoS of all kinds. Prioritizing VoIP above FTP is allowed in all net-neutrality rules. What's not allowed is prioritizing *your* VoIP over your competitor's VoIP.
Also allowed under all net neutrality is blocking P2P, and various other QoS schemes, so long as they are not explicitly anti-competitive.
Yes, it should be the FTC doing the enforcement, but the FTC doesn't understand the issue. The FCC is tasked with understanding the problem. The Justice Department, working with both the FTC and FCC should do the enforcement. Maybe the FCC could write the rules, and hand them to the FTC. But having the FTC write the rules will end up with the bad rules everyone claims are what Net Neutrality is.
The FCC is using this as a power-grab on the Internet, in direct contravention of Congress' authorization.
The FCC is chartered to regulate communications. That's what the first "c" stands for in the name. The Internet is Communication. So it seems quite in-line with the goals and purpose of the organization.
There are trial systems for car batteries. You can change a car's batteries (for specific prototypes) resulting in an energy transfer rate faster than liquid fuel. You drive on a special changer, the old battery is disconnected and drops out the bottom, and a new one is fitted in place. I've seen the videos, so I'm sure you can google it.
Wireless power. Just don't ask about the really long grounding wire.
I flew Christmas Eve in about 1993 from Boston to Dallas, and there were more flight attendants than passengers. "We are suspending all service on this flight. If you want something, just ask." Most everyone pulled up the armrests in the middle row, and laid across middle seats to sleep on the empty plane.
I've not seen many people tattoo the tips of their fingers. And I've never seen EMS use any other kind of device to take pulse ox readings. A full on hospital will still use a fingertip pulse ox reader for the ox, but will get the pulse from an EKG. EKGs are much more common now that they don't need paper and a printer, but store the reading digitally, which give instant feedback, as well as the ability to play back later.
But even then, tattoos often have metal in the pigment,so would that change in conductivity mess up an EKG, given a large chest tattoo with iron in the pigment?
Neo-Liberalism is a conservative philosophy that's linked to laissez faire. At least that's how I've always seen it used, as a pejorative for conservatives who are (presumably falsely) claiming centrism.
It's the right wing party and the righter-wing branch of the same party. Or change who is the branch.
I'm a centrist. When I'm in a more liberal country, people call me a conservative. When people attack me on Slashdot, I'm called liberal and conservative with about the same frequency, just changes based on topic (though, yes, a little more "liberal" than "conservative" because this is a US site, and the middle is seen as liberal).
Pick almost ANY topic and the parties are going to take polar opposite views of it.
They keep the discussion about abortion and gays so that nobody notices that police abuses of minorities are the same in Democratic areas as Republican ones. Or they argue about taxes while both parties increase spending. Republicans pass ACA at the state level, and oppose it at the federal level, but reverse their position on state vs federal power when it comes to gay marriage. The point is to always be arguing so nobody is watching what the other hand is doing. It's a magic act designed to deceive the population.
That's the clear result of this bill. The Conservatives are so focused on getting what they want, that they refuse to consider any side effects. They are trying a back-door funding block to AGW studies that instead will end many medical studies. And pointing it out gets me attacked, which doens't harm my credibility, but proves my point.
The study should be available, but many health studies are done with non-anonymized "raw" data. To require the "raw" data be made available would break other laws on privacy, HIPAA, and such.
So the effect is that this law would end various types of health research. The Conservatives would end all research into heart disease just to stop $10 going to AGW studies. That's why it needs debate.
By your standard, banning lead in gasoline was a junk decision. But subsequent studies showed that the level of damage the EPA presumed was below the actual damage. Sometimes it's best to act from our best guess, even if we can't substantiate it properly at that point. It's right more than it's wrong.
Citation? TFB (The Fucking Bill). I've read it. The "openness" required would ban funding most analysis science, and that's the type used for long-term health studies and climate. The Conservatives are happy to kill innocents to push their personal opinion as law. They are so afraid of AGW that blocking most medical research wouldn't matter to them.
You act like you haven't read the bill. Or you don't know how studies are done.
The wording would make new analysis of 3rd party data illegal. It would shut down lots of legitimate science that's done on license. You can verify it, but you have to pay for access to the data. If this was a budget bill increasing funding for research that would "buy" the data from private sources, that would be good, and undebatable. But for something designed to limit science and reduce learning, there is room for debate.
There is an obvious conflict of interest where [military contractors] can use their political power to extract more public funds from elected governments. In turn, their revenue is dependent on the amount of public funds they can extract. It's a built in incentive to steal as much as they can from the public.
Go on, read your words. Why do I see the conservatives hate on schools and love the military? When the reasons they hate schools are the reasons they love the military?
There are a few things we currently do with excess power, the ideal option is to store it until we need it, such as with compressed air in salt caverns.
I've visited a power generation plant in China. They have reverse-peak problems. They don't have enough peak generation, so they use base-load above base load. That means they have over-production in low use times. So every night, they pump water up hill. And when they need peak power, they use the uphill water to generate electricity.
There are plenty of ways to store electricity. The "problem" is that the peak price of power is now too low to make it worth while for Germany to recover "lost" power.
So you only have ever been in places where jaywalking is illegal? I don't live in Alaska anymore, but I currently lice in a place where jaywalking is explicitly legal. And, aside from a place like NYC, almost nowhere has 100% of intersections controlled.
What vote is bought and with what public funds?
Your argument is that your house is property of the US federal government, since all land outside the original 13 colonies,Texas, and a few other exceptions was once "public land", and once it's been touched, it's forever tainted.
That wasn't a statement from a "historian" but from the former head of the Mormon church.
OK, so a revisionist advocate for the cause. Better?
Its kind of amusing that you think wikipedia.org would be more relevant on this issue than mormon.org.
And quite depressing that you find mormon.org to be more impartial than Wikipedia (and its cites).
Have you thought about contacting the Mormon church to inform it how wrong it is on its position banning polygamy?
Why would I do that. You presume that me correcting you on wrong facts has any bearing on what I think about those facts. The fact is that the Mormons were founded on polygamy. They have also been unable to shake that stigma, no matter how hard they try
They were founded on polygamy. They practiced it for a while, until government pressure helped end it. They don't practice it anymore. Because the government crushed their religious freedom, back in the '80s (1880s).
A single person boycotting for obscure and unpopular reasons will have no effect on the bottom line of a company. I remember when the 7th day adventists organized a "large" boycott of Chrysler. Had something to do with animal products in the lube used in the cars. Chrysler's official response was "we don't care", though some time later, they complied with the requests, but I don't remember how many years that was. In the mean time, Chrysler gained market share while being boycotted by a whole lot more than one Internet nutjob.