What's funny about unions in NZ is they aren't all that strong because a non-union worker has more protections in NZ than most union workers in the US. My wife is in PSA, and they do nothing, as far as she can tell. Joining the union allows one to vote on the collective agreement, but non union members ended up with the same contract. Slightly different termination rules, but not very different.
In the US, "unions are bad" has been given as a reason to close all schools because it's better for the children to be uneducated than indoctrinated by union workers. It's insane, I was making fun of it, not supporting it.
Do you actually think either party has a goal other than the best schools?
Yes. I honestly believe that the Republicans want to disband public education and have a merit-based entry to private schools (parent's merit, not children's), paid for with taxpayer dollars. It's "revenge" for having forced them to educate the poor for so many years.
I've never heard anyone arguing for no public schools,
I have. Charter-schools and for-profit private schools only, and they would be banned by law from having unions and could reject children from admission for arbitrary reasons (including race and religion).
I've gone to plenty of party meetings for Libertarians and Republicans, and I've seen what some people have advocated.
The free piston needs no connection to the car. You could have the engine mounted in a manner that it slides back and forth, giving no net vibration to the chassis. You are thinking of drawbacks to a simple swap. That seems a stupid assumption.
How environmentally unfriendly? I remember reading about an environmental contest, and one entrant was disqualified for submitting a 2-stroke. It would have won, beating all the 4-strokes for economy/emissions, but they changed the rules to exclude 2-stroke after the entry was accepted.
You have battery power enough to take care of the situations describe. For the rest, you do what you do with any other car that doesn't work. You take it in for service.
Also, is 75mph the top speed?
Of what? The first test car? Or the "speed limit" for the engine? You seem to be implying the latter, as you are talking about the engine, not the car.
the minimum is usually 10mph under the posted limit.
No. Where are you? They pulled the minimums off most hihways in the '80s (for those that were left). They found they didn't work. The idea behind them was to encourage grannies to use the side-streets. But it didn't work. So they were mostly abolished. I haven't seen anywhere with them in years, so I think you are lying. Feel free to prove me wrong. "usually" would mean, what 26+ states? Aside from a few limited areas in urban areas (exempt from your "long distance" stretches of interstate), can you name anywhere with them listed as 10 mph under the limit applying to all (or any) roads?
One thing I didn't see is that with a "free piston" why couldn't you have both sides generate power? A 2-stroke on one end and another 2-stroke one stroke dealyed. Double power in a small/light container. Turn off one of them to save fuel. Have a bank of 3, and run them 1-cyl to 6-cyl for a wide variety of power generation and economy modes.
And solved already, better than gasoline powered direct drive is solved. The big ships now are electrical engines powered by generators. Direct connections are less efficient. In a car, copper losss and eddy currents should be closer to to 0%, with known expected loads, you use enough copper for short runs to cover it.
I got an 800 on my math (old SAT, back in 1990), and I still count on my fingers. They allowed calculators (only a few approved ones), and, of course, I used it. The SAT math was about speed, efficiency, and answering the right question. Most people had a problem with the latter. I don't know all of my multiplication tables, it wasn't my thing, but seeing the question and figuring the best way to word it to find the answer was my thing. Didn't miss a question.
Someone else posted it's for people that want to laugh at autism spectrum. Sheldon is mentally ill. He posesses no empathy at all. So we are laughing at the mentally ill. What's the difference between crazy and eccentric? How successful you are. Dr. Sheldon Cooper is sufficiently successful that we can laugh at him for being crazy. I know plenty who like it because they know people like that. You aren't laughing at Sheldon directly, but you are laughing at your coworker/friend who does the same things sometimes.
Teachers are in unions, so the Republicans want to close all public schools. When 1/2 of your government wants to harm the children, and the other 1/2 is worried about other things more, then you get a government that makes sure that every year is the worst year for education in the US. So this year is the worst year in education in the US. Eventually, it will fail, and we'll be left with government-funded for-profit schools pushing the Coke or Baptist agenda, and no minimum education for anyone.
What are you talking about? I've gotten lots of good paying jobs, and nobody once looked at my grades. Except when applying for further education, and even then, they aren't important if you test well. Where have you seen where a transcript is required for a job application? Never, that's why so many CEOs get caught lying on resumes (until they post to LinkedIn and someone recognizes them and knows they didn't get what they claim and turn them in). Even the $10,000,000 a year jobs don't look at actual grades. But no, some AC claims that grades matter. So they must, even if they don't.
It's swung so far the wrong way that in many places, aggressive parents are required to get the minimum education proscribed by law. If you don't have active parents, the school actively punishes the children. The thought is that they are already failures because of their parents, so better to get them used to failure and hope they drop out, so as not to harm the schools statistics.
You're welcome to your opinion of me, but I don't see how that's relevant to the argument. Judging by the mods, though, I've clearly pissed off somebody.
It's not relevant to the discussion, but you are clearly mentally ill if you don't care what anyone thinks of you. It's obviously not me modding you down, as I can't mod and post, so it's not just me that thinks you are being an idiot about it. If you want to know why your post is inflamatory, rather than informative, you could be a little more humble, rather than pompous about it. Oh no, it's the mod's fault for "getting pissed off" or my fault for not understanding. Never your fault for being impractical and insensitive.
That's because it's usually a secondary offense.
I've never seen a place where it was a secondary offense. Where are you? I'll try to look up your state laws to see if it's secondary where you are, or if you are passing incorrect opinion as fact (and thus deserve all the "pissed off" thrown your way). Maybe the lowest "not paying full attention to the road" is secondary where you are, but "careless driving", and "reckless driving" aren't secondary.
The police can't enforce it unless a primary offense was also committed.
Not in some places. Some places, a secondary can be given as the only ticket, so the DWB charge of "it didn't look like you were wearing your seatbelt" will justify the stop, then give them all the secondary tickets you want.
Ah, yes, targeted laws... which are great until the target moves. Laws against cell phones are ineffective against tablets, or in-car navigation systems, or hands-free headsets.
Inadvertently many of the anti-cell laws do hit tablets being used as nav-systems. Hands free is a silly thing to ban. That's like making guns legal, but making triggers illegal. You can't use a hands-free system to make a call without a phone of some kind.
Rather than the weasel "usually..." statements, state some facts, not opinion worded as fact. That weasel wording should earn you a troll mod, regardless of the truth of the statements.
Oh, and on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... your opinion stated as fact is proven wrong. Whether you were lying, or simply ignorant, it doesn't change the fact you were a trolling flamebait.
That is what Koch brothers are opposed, government subsidies to an industry that is not competitive.
But they didn't oppose the subsidies to oil. So they are obviously not anti-subsidy, but instead anti-everyone else. That's a different thing.
The problem with solar and wind is they are by nature intermittent. So they need base load power, nuclear, coal, hydro, or gas to back them up.
No, they don't. They need each other, or over-production. Some places already use stored power, from hydro to kinetic storage. The problem can be solved in ways you can't imagine. You've proven your imagination limited.
When the reason is explicitly stated as "stability" it isn't a conspiracy theory. It's fact. The US pushes "stability". Generally that means market stability.
It is very very rare when I would have had to put a call on hold for any of those excuses, and I've been rear-ended more than most (3 times in 2 months, shortly after I bought a 911 - no, none of them were from stopping short). I don't make or take calls in the car. Well, I do if it's the wife. It's more likely that a kid is in the hospital than anything else if she calls while I'm driving, and it takes me 2 seconds to answer and say "driving" and she either says "go to the hospital" or "talk at home". Every sales guy I know takes calls in the car, and none has ever had to have the guy hold for something like you mention.
So your ad hominem is better? Attack the source, but don't address the statements in the source? It's still 1000 times more useful than your "contribution".
Solar could replace fossil fuels in a few years. If every roof in the US was paneled, we'd have enough power for today's needs. We'd need plants for increased use, as usage always goes up, and especially as EVs replace oil-burners. But the amount of real estate in the US is enough to supply all solar needed. Some nuke for base load/night, some hydro and geothermal as appropriate for supplemental power, and we are good. The tech exists today to make the US fossil-fuel-free. We just choose to not do it.
I don't believe it. I've seen the numbers. They often include things like "manufacturing" McDonald's food as manufacturing. The Del Monte cannery my mother worked at in Illinois in the 1950s is closed. Detroit is closed. The satellite gear I bought, "manufactured in CA", was manufactured in China with enough final assembly in CA to count as US made. Steel in the US is dropping, and much of it is sent over seas. We aren't making as much, From what I can tell, we are just moving more "services" into the "manufacturing" count, and claiming a win, as we make less and less.
I'd love for someone to prove me wrong, but I haven't had it happen yet. Show me we still make things.
On a per dollar basis, I think oil is more subsidized than solar. And his wealth transfer system wasn't any more interesting than HW making his son rich, also in energy (oil in west Texas) until Jr moved on to generating his own wealth by threatening to call daddy if the Rangers didn't get a new stadium.
Neither side is clean, and your attacks on the "other side" strike as permission for the Koch's actions. If that's not the case, then perhaps you should choose your words more wisely.
Why are you assuming that's the objective? Maybe the first mission was to a 90%+ match, and by the time the second is ready to go, they refined that to a 98% Earth match in the first target, and the second target is an 85% Earth match, greatly reducing the chances of long-term survival. So, would you send the second colony ship to the best possible match, or hope the first colony is successful, though with their travel method, they'll get there with 500 year old technology, so you won't know for a long time, and the survival probability of the second ship is higher because of new technologies discovered since the first launched for hydroponics and other things to raise Earth-plants in a hostile environment better. So the best chance of a "second Earth" is to launch the second ship to the same place as the first. Or maybe a 75% chance on two planets is better than a 98% chance on one planet...
Slashdot Mirror
What's funny about unions in NZ is they aren't all that strong because a non-union worker has more protections in NZ than most union workers in the US. My wife is in PSA, and they do nothing, as far as she can tell. Joining the union allows one to vote on the collective agreement, but non union members ended up with the same contract. Slightly different termination rules, but not very different.
In the US, "unions are bad" has been given as a reason to close all schools because it's better for the children to be uneducated than indoctrinated by union workers. It's insane, I was making fun of it, not supporting it.
Do you actually think either party has a goal other than the best schools?
Yes. I honestly believe that the Republicans want to disband public education and have a merit-based entry to private schools (parent's merit, not children's), paid for with taxpayer dollars. It's "revenge" for having forced them to educate the poor for so many years.
I've never heard anyone arguing for no public schools,
I have. Charter-schools and for-profit private schools only, and they would be banned by law from having unions and could reject children from admission for arbitrary reasons (including race and religion).
I've gone to plenty of party meetings for Libertarians and Republicans, and I've seen what some people have advocated.
Yet still much better than direct-drive Diesel.
The free piston needs no connection to the car. You could have the engine mounted in a manner that it slides back and forth, giving no net vibration to the chassis. You are thinking of drawbacks to a simple swap. That seems a stupid assumption.
How environmentally unfriendly? I remember reading about an environmental contest, and one entrant was disqualified for submitting a 2-stroke. It would have won, beating all the 4-strokes for economy/emissions, but they changed the rules to exclude 2-stroke after the entry was accepted.
Also, is 75mph the top speed?
Of what? The first test car? Or the "speed limit" for the engine? You seem to be implying the latter, as you are talking about the engine, not the car.
the minimum is usually 10mph under the posted limit.
No. Where are you? They pulled the minimums off most hihways in the '80s (for those that were left). They found they didn't work. The idea behind them was to encourage grannies to use the side-streets. But it didn't work. So they were mostly abolished. I haven't seen anywhere with them in years, so I think you are lying. Feel free to prove me wrong. "usually" would mean, what 26+ states? Aside from a few limited areas in urban areas (exempt from your "long distance" stretches of interstate), can you name anywhere with them listed as 10 mph under the limit applying to all (or any) roads?
One thing I didn't see is that with a "free piston" why couldn't you have both sides generate power? A 2-stroke on one end and another 2-stroke one stroke dealyed. Double power in a small/light container. Turn off one of them to save fuel. Have a bank of 3, and run them 1-cyl to 6-cyl for a wide variety of power generation and economy modes.
And solved already, better than gasoline powered direct drive is solved. The big ships now are electrical engines powered by generators. Direct connections are less efficient. In a car, copper losss and eddy currents should be closer to to 0%, with known expected loads, you use enough copper for short runs to cover it.
I got an 800 on my math (old SAT, back in 1990), and I still count on my fingers. They allowed calculators (only a few approved ones), and, of course, I used it. The SAT math was about speed, efficiency, and answering the right question. Most people had a problem with the latter. I don't know all of my multiplication tables, it wasn't my thing, but seeing the question and figuring the best way to word it to find the answer was my thing. Didn't miss a question.
Someone else posted it's for people that want to laugh at autism spectrum. Sheldon is mentally ill. He posesses no empathy at all. So we are laughing at the mentally ill. What's the difference between crazy and eccentric? How successful you are. Dr. Sheldon Cooper is sufficiently successful that we can laugh at him for being crazy. I know plenty who like it because they know people like that. You aren't laughing at Sheldon directly, but you are laughing at your coworker/friend who does the same things sometimes.
Teachers are in unions, so the Republicans want to close all public schools. When 1/2 of your government wants to harm the children, and the other 1/2 is worried about other things more, then you get a government that makes sure that every year is the worst year for education in the US. So this year is the worst year in education in the US. Eventually, it will fail, and we'll be left with government-funded for-profit schools pushing the Coke or Baptist agenda, and no minimum education for anyone.
What are you talking about? I've gotten lots of good paying jobs, and nobody once looked at my grades. Except when applying for further education, and even then, they aren't important if you test well. Where have you seen where a transcript is required for a job application? Never, that's why so many CEOs get caught lying on resumes (until they post to LinkedIn and someone recognizes them and knows they didn't get what they claim and turn them in). Even the $10,000,000 a year jobs don't look at actual grades. But no, some AC claims that grades matter. So they must, even if they don't.
It's swung so far the wrong way that in many places, aggressive parents are required to get the minimum education proscribed by law. If you don't have active parents, the school actively punishes the children. The thought is that they are already failures because of their parents, so better to get them used to failure and hope they drop out, so as not to harm the schools statistics.
vocabulary = rote memorization? basic math = rote memorization? And anything learned by rote memorization is bad.
Sounds like someone who thinks he's smart who got a low score...
So those Romans were Indian givers?
You're welcome to your opinion of me, but I don't see how that's relevant to the argument. Judging by the mods, though, I've clearly pissed off somebody.
It's not relevant to the discussion, but you are clearly mentally ill if you don't care what anyone thinks of you. It's obviously not me modding you down, as I can't mod and post, so it's not just me that thinks you are being an idiot about it. If you want to know why your post is inflamatory, rather than informative, you could be a little more humble, rather than pompous about it. Oh no, it's the mod's fault for "getting pissed off" or my fault for not understanding. Never your fault for being impractical and insensitive.
That's because it's usually a secondary offense.
I've never seen a place where it was a secondary offense. Where are you? I'll try to look up your state laws to see if it's secondary where you are, or if you are passing incorrect opinion as fact (and thus deserve all the "pissed off" thrown your way). Maybe the lowest "not paying full attention to the road" is secondary where you are, but "careless driving", and "reckless driving" aren't secondary.
The police can't enforce it unless a primary offense was also committed.
Not in some places. Some places, a secondary can be given as the only ticket, so the DWB charge of "it didn't look like you were wearing your seatbelt" will justify the stop, then give them all the secondary tickets you want.
Ah, yes, targeted laws... which are great until the target moves. Laws against cell phones are ineffective against tablets, or in-car navigation systems, or hands-free headsets.
Inadvertently many of the anti-cell laws do hit tablets being used as nav-systems. Hands free is a silly thing to ban. That's like making guns legal, but making triggers illegal. You can't use a hands-free system to make a call without a phone of some kind.
Rather than the weasel "usually..." statements, state some facts, not opinion worded as fact. That weasel wording should earn you a troll mod, regardless of the truth of the statements.
Oh, and on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... your opinion stated as fact is proven wrong. Whether you were lying, or simply ignorant, it doesn't change the fact you were a trolling flamebait.
That is what Koch brothers are opposed, government subsidies to an industry that is not competitive.
But they didn't oppose the subsidies to oil. So they are obviously not anti-subsidy, but instead anti-everyone else. That's a different thing.
The problem with solar and wind is they are by nature intermittent. So they need base load power, nuclear, coal, hydro, or gas to back them up.
No, they don't. They need each other, or over-production. Some places already use stored power, from hydro to kinetic storage. The problem can be solved in ways you can't imagine. You've proven your imagination limited.
When the reason is explicitly stated as "stability" it isn't a conspiracy theory. It's fact. The US pushes "stability". Generally that means market stability.
It is very very rare when I would have had to put a call on hold for any of those excuses, and I've been rear-ended more than most (3 times in 2 months, shortly after I bought a 911 - no, none of them were from stopping short). I don't make or take calls in the car. Well, I do if it's the wife. It's more likely that a kid is in the hospital than anything else if she calls while I'm driving, and it takes me 2 seconds to answer and say "driving" and she either says "go to the hospital" or "talk at home". Every sales guy I know takes calls in the car, and none has ever had to have the guy hold for something like you mention.
Yeah, those Vandals got gypped with that one.
So your ad hominem is better? Attack the source, but don't address the statements in the source? It's still 1000 times more useful than your "contribution".
Solar could replace fossil fuels in a few years. If every roof in the US was paneled, we'd have enough power for today's needs. We'd need plants for increased use, as usage always goes up, and especially as EVs replace oil-burners. But the amount of real estate in the US is enough to supply all solar needed. Some nuke for base load/night, some hydro and geothermal as appropriate for supplemental power, and we are good. The tech exists today to make the US fossil-fuel-free. We just choose to not do it.
I don't believe it. I've seen the numbers. They often include things like "manufacturing" McDonald's food as manufacturing. The Del Monte cannery my mother worked at in Illinois in the 1950s is closed. Detroit is closed. The satellite gear I bought, "manufactured in CA", was manufactured in China with enough final assembly in CA to count as US made. Steel in the US is dropping, and much of it is sent over seas. We aren't making as much, From what I can tell, we are just moving more "services" into the "manufacturing" count, and claiming a win, as we make less and less.
I'd love for someone to prove me wrong, but I haven't had it happen yet. Show me we still make things.
On a per dollar basis, I think oil is more subsidized than solar. And his wealth transfer system wasn't any more interesting than HW making his son rich, also in energy (oil in west Texas) until Jr moved on to generating his own wealth by threatening to call daddy if the Rangers didn't get a new stadium.
Neither side is clean, and your attacks on the "other side" strike as permission for the Koch's actions. If that's not the case, then perhaps you should choose your words more wisely.
Why are you assuming that's the objective? Maybe the first mission was to a 90%+ match, and by the time the second is ready to go, they refined that to a 98% Earth match in the first target, and the second target is an 85% Earth match, greatly reducing the chances of long-term survival. So, would you send the second colony ship to the best possible match, or hope the first colony is successful, though with their travel method, they'll get there with 500 year old technology, so you won't know for a long time, and the survival probability of the second ship is higher because of new technologies discovered since the first launched for hydroponics and other things to raise Earth-plants in a hostile environment better. So the best chance of a "second Earth" is to launch the second ship to the same place as the first. Or maybe a 75% chance on two planets is better than a 98% chance on one planet...