That's fine if you don't think it's important. But I don't have any intention of killing you, and I do think its important, so you have no good reason to try to userp my judgement on the matter. Neither of us really knows who is right, so maybe it would be better if we keep out of each others business, right?
My "health, education and safety" haven't been impacted by guns so far, and that's the case for most people. While its true that some fall victim to accidents with guns or violence carried out with guns, it's not by any means a major public health crisis. It's a problem that's on the decline and even if it weren't there are other ways to address it than by restricting access to guns.
And as for "some redneck fascination with a weapon," do I sound like a redneck to you? I just don't want another "war on drugs" based some nonexistent public health crisis.
First of all, it's the rate of violence that matters, not the rate of "gun violence". Being shot to death isn't any worse than being poisoned or stabbed to death. Secondly, the rate of violent crime in the US is down by more than half over the same time period, so maybe it's the gun laws an maybe it isn't. Finally, improved safety is not an especially good reason to give up on important freedoms. Banning guns or imposing strict controls only sounds reasonable to people who don't value their gun rights in the first place.
The vast majority of people making up "the market" . . . probably cannot become informed in any meaningful way for any appreciable percentage of the product categories they participate in.
This is not true. At one point in time almost everyone was intimately aware of where products came from because they produced it themselves or knew the person who did. If we change the way we live to be closer to the source of the products we use, people would have a much better understanding of these products.
But that isn't necessary. Simply taking the effort to explain to our children how things work and how they are made, then giving them a more diverse array of job experience would be enough. However, we tend to portray these kind of issues a unimportant or low-brow and children get the impression that it's more important to follow popular culture and study liberal arts than gain a technical understanding of how the world works.
There may be some benefit to lowering the cost of electrolysis, but the real problem is still the cost of fuel cells, or the inefficiency of producing power from the hydrogen through conventional means.
It's just a trend. When cellphones first came out, they were huge. Everyone wanted the smallest possible phone, so manufacturers just kept making them as small as possible. At some point in the flip-phone era they got too small and they were actually an inconvenience for the average user. While you see some companies trying to find the optimum size, others are simply trying to stay ahead of the trends so they can capitalize on their user's fickle tastes.
For me the benchmark is whether I can touch the whole screen with my thumb while I'm firmly gripping the phone. I think I could do it with the GS4, but I'd be more comfortable with a smaller screen. I have pretty big hands, so most users would be in the same boat as me. A galaxy note user would certainly not be able to fully operate the phone with one hand (without risking dropping the phone). But supposedly the trade-off is worth it to them for the increased screen space, we'll know in a few years when the current note owners are due for an upgrade.
You don't have an intelligent debate about something by saying "I don't like what you're saying so I'm going to boycott you." Now, if you uncomfortable buying his books that understandable, but what are you trying to accomplish by organizing a boycott? Do you want him to pretend to not believe what he's been saying in order to earn your $$$? Do you want publishers not to publish his works simply because you fine some of his views disagreeable? All you would be doing is silencing dissent, which accomplishes nothing in the long run.
I actually did buy a Fiesta after watching their Fiesta review. Of course, I was already looking for a small four door hatchback, and I really liked the green color, and I was already looking at the Fiesta, so I probably would have bought one anyway, but I'm sure their show influenced my decision to some extent.
Hundreds of milliseconds? You mean tenths of seconds? As in more than one tenth of a second? That's not really very fast.
What I do is time it so that my gear selector reaches the new gear at the same time as I've fully depressed the clutch, then I let my foot off of the clutch. It takes me 200ms tops. I can see if you push the clutch in fully, then change gears, then let it out it might take you maybe half a second if you are slow and careful about it, but that's not necessary because you can pull it out of gear without even touching the clutch. Any gear change you haven't botched should only take a few tenths of a second.
The benefit of having a manual is that you can choose when to shift. The automated manual doesn't know when you are about to increase power. That means it has to shift after you've already stepped on the gas, and even then there's a lag between when you step on the gas and when it decides to shift. Not to mention it doesn't know to downshift when you're going downhill to save your breaks. It also gives you a benefit when you're starting, since if you wan to go fast off the line, you can rev up the engine and let out the clutch faster when you start. Also, I can shift faster than an automated manual, and I'd bet most other experienced manual drivers can too.
Pentagon papers: common knowledge that should never have been classified in the first place
Really? It certainly was big news.
nonetheless if the source had ever been found, that person should have been executed
Just because you attach two sentences with a semicolon doesn't mean they logically flow into each other. Reaching this conclusion is insanity. You're saying we should kill whistleblowers, and you aren't giving any good reason at all for that assessment. You come off as being senseless and bloodthirsty.
The problem you're running into is the difference between energy and power. While it's true that the moving air above the surface contains energy, what is actually useful is the power that is taken up by the air mostly from solar heating, and is ultimately dissipated to friction at the boundary layer. This is the resource that is limited.
If the job doesn't require a degree, you shouldn't even be looking at candidates with degrees. Unless you want to be stuck with someone who's just going to be there until they can find a real job. You have it exactly backwards, as does the whole insane job market.
Wow, it sounds like you really hate this two weeks notice thing. I always felt it was a minimal concession, at best. It's certinally worth it to avoid required union membership. What are you thinking?
There would be a lag between falling levels of lead in peoples blood and a drop in violent crime if lead were the cause of violent crime as well. That's because lead affects the developing brains of children much more than the brains of adults.
As far as the use of Romania as a control, I don't think it's reasonable to assert that you could have an actual control in this case. Using a control implies that your test and your control are identical, and that you are only changing one variable in the test. This is not the case. Romania and the US have had very different things going on since Roe v. Wade. Moreover, it's not a control if you changing the variable in question. A control would be a state that prohibited abortion before, and continued to do so afterward.
Levels of poverty have not decreased in that time period, so it is not reasonable to conclude that having fewer poor people is causing the crime rate to fall. It's only the effects of children being "unwanted" which are in question here, and that happens in the wealthy as well as the poor. If the rate of abortions among the wealthy are lower, I would suggest that it's because they are more able to conceal their abortions than anything. I would also suggest that the lower crime rate among the rich probably has more to do with police selectively enforcing laws than anything else.
I tend to question the usefulness of these large statistical analyses. It is unlikely that we know all the factors involved in crime, but there are certainly more than just lead and abortion. The "war on drugs," for example, has certainly contributed. Also, the cultural revolution of the 60's winding down may have had an effect. Increased diagnosis of mental disorders like ADHD and Autism may be having an effect. It's fun to say they've controlled for all the variables, but it's also impossible because we just don't know.
In any case, we know that lead exposure can lead to problems, so we stopped putting it in our gasoline. And I doubt we'll be banning abortion anytime soon. The real question is what can we do to bring down the crime rate further, assuming we still feel it is unacceptably high.
I'm in Idaho so all they grow here is corn and wheat and potatoes, which are harvested by machine. I'd imagine they go before they head out and plan to take periodic breaks as they return to their facilities. But for people picking by hand, it's slower going. You'd just have to move the porta-potty every day to keep up with them.
I don't know about how well farmers do with compliance, but OSHA does require that bathroom facilities be available for all employees whenever they need to go. I live in a rural agricultural area and I do see port-potties around during the growing season. I've never done any farming, but when I've worked construction making bathroom facilities available was always a priority to the project managers.
Slashdot Mirror
That's fine if you don't think it's important. But I don't have any intention of killing you, and I do think its important, so you have no good reason to try to userp my judgement on the matter. Neither of us really knows who is right, so maybe it would be better if we keep out of each others business, right?
My "health, education and safety" haven't been impacted by guns so far, and that's the case for most people. While its true that some fall victim to accidents with guns or violence carried out with guns, it's not by any means a major public health crisis. It's a problem that's on the decline and even if it weren't there are other ways to address it than by restricting access to guns.
And as for "some redneck fascination with a weapon," do I sound like a redneck to you? I just don't want another "war on drugs" based some nonexistent public health crisis.
First of all, it's the rate of violence that matters, not the rate of "gun violence". Being shot to death isn't any worse than being poisoned or stabbed to death. Secondly, the rate of violent crime in the US is down by more than half over the same time period, so maybe it's the gun laws an maybe it isn't. Finally, improved safety is not an especially good reason to give up on important freedoms. Banning guns or imposing strict controls only sounds reasonable to people who don't value their gun rights in the first place.
This is not true. At one point in time almost everyone was intimately aware of where products came from because they produced it themselves or knew the person who did. If we change the way we live to be closer to the source of the products we use, people would have a much better understanding of these products.
But that isn't necessary. Simply taking the effort to explain to our children how things work and how they are made, then giving them a more diverse array of job experience would be enough. However, we tend to portray these kind of issues a unimportant or low-brow and children get the impression that it's more important to follow popular culture and study liberal arts than gain a technical understanding of how the world works.
There may be some benefit to lowering the cost of electrolysis, but the real problem is still the cost of fuel cells, or the inefficiency of producing power from the hydrogen through conventional means.
The current version of iOS was released 3 weeks ago.
It's just a trend. When cellphones first came out, they were huge. Everyone wanted the smallest possible phone, so manufacturers just kept making them as small as possible. At some point in the flip-phone era they got too small and they were actually an inconvenience for the average user. While you see some companies trying to find the optimum size, others are simply trying to stay ahead of the trends so they can capitalize on their user's fickle tastes.
For me the benchmark is whether I can touch the whole screen with my thumb while I'm firmly gripping the phone. I think I could do it with the GS4, but I'd be more comfortable with a smaller screen. I have pretty big hands, so most users would be in the same boat as me. A galaxy note user would certainly not be able to fully operate the phone with one hand (without risking dropping the phone). But supposedly the trade-off is worth it to them for the increased screen space, we'll know in a few years when the current note owners are due for an upgrade.
What could possibly go wrong?
Maintaining democracy isn't the role of the government. Where the people lead, the government will follow.
You don't have an intelligent debate about something by saying "I don't like what you're saying so I'm going to boycott you." Now, if you uncomfortable buying his books that understandable, but what are you trying to accomplish by organizing a boycott? Do you want him to pretend to not believe what he's been saying in order to earn your $$$? Do you want publishers not to publish his works simply because you fine some of his views disagreeable? All you would be doing is silencing dissent, which accomplishes nothing in the long run.
I actually did buy a Fiesta after watching their Fiesta review. Of course, I was already looking for a small four door hatchback, and I really liked the green color, and I was already looking at the Fiesta, so I probably would have bought one anyway, but I'm sure their show influenced my decision to some extent.
Hundreds of milliseconds? You mean tenths of seconds? As in more than one tenth of a second? That's not really very fast.
What I do is time it so that my gear selector reaches the new gear at the same time as I've fully depressed the clutch, then I let my foot off of the clutch. It takes me 200ms tops. I can see if you push the clutch in fully, then change gears, then let it out it might take you maybe half a second if you are slow and careful about it, but that's not necessary because you can pull it out of gear without even touching the clutch. Any gear change you haven't botched should only take a few tenths of a second.
The benefit of having a manual is that you can choose when to shift. The automated manual doesn't know when you are about to increase power. That means it has to shift after you've already stepped on the gas, and even then there's a lag between when you step on the gas and when it decides to shift. Not to mention it doesn't know to downshift when you're going downhill to save your breaks. It also gives you a benefit when you're starting, since if you wan to go fast off the line, you can rev up the engine and let out the clutch faster when you start. Also, I can shift faster than an automated manual, and I'd bet most other experienced manual drivers can too.
The person you're responding to is clearly a brain-dead asshole. Asking him for an excuse is like asking a scorpion why it stung you.
Really? It certainly was big news.
Just because you attach two sentences with a semicolon doesn't mean they logically flow into each other. Reaching this conclusion is insanity. You're saying we should kill whistleblowers, and you aren't giving any good reason at all for that assessment. You come off as being senseless and bloodthirsty.
The problem you're running into is the difference between energy and power. While it's true that the moving air above the surface contains energy, what is actually useful is the power that is taken up by the air mostly from solar heating, and is ultimately dissipated to friction at the boundary layer. This is the resource that is limited.
If the job doesn't require a degree, you shouldn't even be looking at candidates with degrees. Unless you want to be stuck with someone who's just going to be there until they can find a real job. You have it exactly backwards, as does the whole insane job market.
It is inefficient to make everyone spend 4 extra years in school just so lazy recruiters can save themselves a couple hours, to say the least.
Like fusion power, it sounds like this technology is 50 years away.
It's just because the Americans are asleep right now. It'll be modded down to troll in the morning.
Wow, it sounds like you really hate this two weeks notice thing. I always felt it was a minimal concession, at best. It's certinally worth it to avoid required union membership. What are you thinking?
There would be a lag between falling levels of lead in peoples blood and a drop in violent crime if lead were the cause of violent crime as well. That's because lead affects the developing brains of children much more than the brains of adults.
As far as the use of Romania as a control, I don't think it's reasonable to assert that you could have an actual control in this case. Using a control implies that your test and your control are identical, and that you are only changing one variable in the test. This is not the case. Romania and the US have had very different things going on since Roe v. Wade. Moreover, it's not a control if you changing the variable in question. A control would be a state that prohibited abortion before, and continued to do so afterward.
Levels of poverty have not decreased in that time period, so it is not reasonable to conclude that having fewer poor people is causing the crime rate to fall. It's only the effects of children being "unwanted" which are in question here, and that happens in the wealthy as well as the poor. If the rate of abortions among the wealthy are lower, I would suggest that it's because they are more able to conceal their abortions than anything. I would also suggest that the lower crime rate among the rich probably has more to do with police selectively enforcing laws than anything else.
I tend to question the usefulness of these large statistical analyses. It is unlikely that we know all the factors involved in crime, but there are certainly more than just lead and abortion. The "war on drugs," for example, has certainly contributed. Also, the cultural revolution of the 60's winding down may have had an effect. Increased diagnosis of mental disorders like ADHD and Autism may be having an effect. It's fun to say they've controlled for all the variables, but it's also impossible because we just don't know.
In any case, we know that lead exposure can lead to problems, so we stopped putting it in our gasoline. And I doubt we'll be banning abortion anytime soon. The real question is what can we do to bring down the crime rate further, assuming we still feel it is unacceptably high.
Except that we know lead exposure in children causes behavioral problems and has lasting physical and psychological effects.
I'm in Idaho so all they grow here is corn and wheat and potatoes, which are harvested by machine. I'd imagine they go before they head out and plan to take periodic breaks as they return to their facilities. But for people picking by hand, it's slower going. You'd just have to move the porta-potty every day to keep up with them.
I don't know about how well farmers do with compliance, but OSHA does require that bathroom facilities be available for all employees whenever they need to go. I live in a rural agricultural area and I do see port-potties around during the growing season. I've never done any farming, but when I've worked construction making bathroom facilities available was always a priority to the project managers.