This is not a "problem" with the lumen scale. This is what the lumen scale is for. Lumens rate the utility of light sources for human vision. Green is weighted heavily because the eye is much more sensitive to green than to red or blue. A light source that can't produce green efficiently will not be highly efficient for illumination. If you want to know how efficient a light source is as a grow light, then you need to use some other measure than lumens per watt.
This whole "gay marriage mess" is a side effect of the fact that the US Government has
decided to meddle in something that EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET views as a primarily
religious matter.
This isn't true at all. Marriage is primarily a civil matter. It is an arrangement in which society recognizes two people has having formed a bond that imposes some responsibilities on each toward the other. Religions have overlaid religious significance on this civil arrangement, to varying degrees. While the Roman Catholic church has gone as far as to make marriage a sacrament (comparable to baptism or communion), not all religions (Christian or otherwise) go this far. Many do not consider marriage to be of great religious significance.
In some European countries (Germany, I think?) churches are not even allowed to legally marry people. Couples are legally married in a civil ceremony, and then have a religious ceremony if they wish, but the religious ceremony has no legal effect whatsoever.
I think there was also a problem with the quality of diesel fuel in the US until a year or three ago. IIRC, US standards allowed the sale of a lower grade of diesel fuel than is allowed in Europe. The European diesel engines that perform so well fail early if run on the fuel that was then available in the US. I think the situation has been improved, but I don't know if US fuel is up to the same standard as Europe now.
-Gas is $3/gal.
-Cost to drive Corolla: $3/gal / 30 mi/gal = $0.10/mi
-Cost to drive Prius: $3/gal / 40 mi/gal = $0.075/mi
You fill up a 13 gallon tank once a week, so you are driving about 13x30=390 mi/wk
-Corolla: $0.10/mi x 390 mi/wk = $39/wk = $20,280 over 10 years
-Prius: $0.075/mi x 390 mi/wk = $29.25/wk = $15,210 over 10 years
So, the Prius saves you $5070 over ten years, so in the long run you pay less than $1000 more to do something good for the environment and drive a nicer car. You also have to ask yourself how the resale values of both cars will compare at the end of that ten years. If the Prius is worth $930 more than the Corolla, it wins.
How would you handle licensing? This is an important feature of patents: the inventor doesn't have to do the product development herself. Indeed, it is often unfeasible for an inventor to take an idea from the genius concept stage, to a marketable product on her own. It is important that the person who had the idea has the option to sell/license the rights to that idea to someone else who has the potential to bring it to market.
With your proposal, potential licensees will just proceed with the product development themselves and not pay the inventor a dime. If the patent clock runs out before they finish their product development, they are free and clear. If it doesn't, they start selling the product anyway. If the inventor can't sue, she has no recourse. Even if the inventor could have potentially developed the product, nobody will finance that because larger competitors will likely beat her to market.
What you really want then is for the patent to be issued, but expire if the holder fails to bring a product to market within a certain time. The patent holder needs the ability to sue during the product development process. Otherwise a competitor could potentially look at what they are doing, copy it, and bring it to market quicker. If the patent holder is unable to sue, they can't get an injunction to force the competitor to stop. By the time the patent holder gets their product ready to market, it may be too late.
The trouble with that is that some technologies take effort to develop from the concept stage to the "marketable product" stage. Unless devices can be patented before this development is done, there is no way to secure financing to develop the product. Prototyping is expensive and takes time. Designing a final product takes further time and money. Building production capacity to actually make that final product takes still more time and money. Who is going to pay for that if someone else could start selling them two days before you're ready to ship your product, and invalidate your patent?
If there is no hope of knowing who did it, then the question is moot. The issue here is that in many cases there is an entity that can identify the anonymous poster, such as an ISP or the operator of the website on which the comment was posted. The court has the power to compel that entity to reveal the anonymous poster's identity. This decision sets out rules for when it is appropriate for the court to do that.
That's kind of the point, and is why the change doesn't kick in until a certain number of other states have done likewise. The intent is to get the effect of abandoning the electoral college, without the trouble of actually amending the constitution. By intent, the plan makes the results of the presidential election depend on the national popular vote, not on the distribution of votes in any one state. If states comprising at least 270 electoral college seats pass this legislation, the transition to national popular vote is complete.
Auto registration is controlled by the states, not the federal government, so of course there is no nationally mandated test on cars. Many states do, however, require emissions and/or safety tests as a condition of continuing registration.
The money=labour equation, while valuable, misses how investment works. There are two ways to make money: by labour or by taking on risk. If you buy something and resell it elsewhere at a higher price, some of that final price reflects the labour that went into producing the thing and in moving it from the seller to the subsequent buyer. Some of the price reflects the risk you took in the deal. By buying the thing, you took a risk that you would not be able to sell it for more than you paid. The profit you made on the deal compensates you for the risk you took. If there were no risk, someone would be willing to sell the item for less. Someone starting a business invests labour in producing their product, but also takes a risk: they may lose the money they put into starting the business. Outside investors (eg. in the stock market) take some or all of that risk away from the founders of the company. They make money not because they add labour but because they take risk.
Perhaps, but the reverse can also be bad. Sometimes you need a marketer-type running a business. A lot of tech start-ups fail because the business is run by an inventor or engineer who understands the technology really well, but doesn't understand what the customers want or what kind of business model will work.
Don't forget they are just coming with the ideas; every single decision is the President's.
That's not actually true. The cabinet secretaries do have to run their own departments and make most decisions on their own. the President makes the big policy decisions. It wouldn't be efficient if the President had to run everything with only advisors to assist him. The cabinet secretaries are managers, not merely advisors.
Actually, there is an important reason for publishing the names of those who are charged with crimes, and it is the same reason why civilized countries have public trials and public court records. Ultimately, the right of the public to observe the court process is what keeps the justice system fair. If the public has no means of determining that someone has been charged with a crime, they can't get involved in watching the trial to ensure that it is fair.
As with sites that use Flash, your site can detect whether the IE user has the plugin and the browser can prompt the user to install it if it is not present. You can't prod users to change browsers, but experience has shown that users can be prodded into installing a plugin if it is required to use a site.
Actually most of the books you would use in high school were and are secondary sources. Wikipedia is by policy a tertiary source.
Secondary sources are citable, although if one is writing a primary source (e.g. a scientific paper) one normally cites other primary sources. I'm not sure why a tertiary source like an encyclopedia wouldn't be citable, but others here assert that they are not.
This is not Wikipedia's policy, although perhaps it happens from time to time. Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" is actually a quite nuanced position. An article in proper NPOV attempts to present all sides of an issue with appropriate (not equal) weight. Minority views are presented as minority views. Views held by extremely small minorities are not presented at all, except in specialized articles dealing with the minority viewpoint. Well-written WP articles present more than a single point of view--they compare and contrast notable views.
This may be partly a supply issue. Since flat-panel TV is moving to the widescreen format, laptop manufacturers probably can get widescreens more cheaply than 4:3 screens of the same size. Expect this trend to continue: in five years there will be nothing but widescreens. Hopefully by then applications will have adjusted to take better advantage of them.
In the long run, there won't be bulbs. Given the long, long lifetime of LEDs, there is no need for a replaceable bulb. It's better engineering to integrate the LEDs into the fixture. You replace the LEDs when you replace the fixture. This also makes sense for LEDs because of their distinct form-factor. Unlike most other light sources, LEDs tend to be directional. It's better to make a fixture that has LEDs pointed in the direction(s) where light is desired, rather than put extra effort into making a "bulb" that distributes light uniformly, and then installing it into a fixture that limits the distribution of light to desired directions with a shade or reflector.
Don't judge us all by the loud members of the Christian Right. There are plenty of Christians who do not behave the way you describe, and who disagree with those who do. Some of us are liberals. Some of us are scientists. Lots of us believe in evolution.
Gravity is an observed fact. Newton's Theory of Gravity is a scientific theory, as is General Relativity (which explains gravity in more detail).
Evolution is an observed fact. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, as are the more modern evolutionary theories which have since replaced it.
The idea that one species can evolve into a completely seperate species... is what is a theory.
Actually, even that is an observed fact. There are several well-documented examples of the appearance of a new species. IIRC, one was a tree that was a natural hybrid of two other species, and had a different number of chromosomes from either of the two parent species. The hybrid was fertile, but only with itself not with the parent species. The hybrid was thus a distinct, new, species.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not a "problem" with the lumen scale. This is what the lumen scale is for. Lumens rate the utility of light sources for human vision. Green is weighted heavily because the eye is much more sensitive to green than to red or blue. A light source that can't produce green efficiently will not be highly efficient for illumination. If you want to know how efficient a light source is as a grow light, then you need to use some other measure than lumens per watt.
This isn't true at all. Marriage is primarily a civil matter. It is an arrangement in which society recognizes two people has having formed a bond that imposes some responsibilities on each toward the other. Religions have overlaid religious significance on this civil arrangement, to varying degrees. While the Roman Catholic church has gone as far as to make marriage a sacrament (comparable to baptism or communion), not all religions (Christian or otherwise) go this far. Many do not consider marriage to be of great religious significance.
In some European countries (Germany, I think?) churches are not even allowed to legally marry people. Couples are legally married in a civil ceremony, and then have a religious ceremony if they wish, but the religious ceremony has no legal effect whatsoever.
I think there was also a problem with the quality of diesel fuel in the US until a year or three ago. IIRC, US standards allowed the sale of a lower grade of diesel fuel than is allowed in Europe. The European diesel engines that perform so well fail early if run on the fuel that was then available in the US. I think the situation has been improved, but I don't know if US fuel is up to the same standard as Europe now.
-Gas is $3 /gal. /mi /mi
-Cost to drive Corolla: $3/gal / 30 mi/gal = $0.10
-Cost to drive Prius: $3/gal / 40 mi/gal = $0.075
You fill up a 13 gallon tank once a week, so you are driving about 13x30=390 mi/wk
-Corolla: $0.10 /mi x 390 mi/wk = $39 /wk = $20,280 over 10 years /mi x 390 mi/wk = $29.25 /wk = $15,210 over 10 years
-Prius: $0.075
So, the Prius saves you $5070 over ten years, so in the long run you pay less than $1000 more to do something good for the environment and drive a nicer car. You also have to ask yourself how the resale values of both cars will compare at the end of that ten years. If the Prius is worth $930 more than the Corolla, it wins.
With your proposal, potential licensees will just proceed with the product development themselves and not pay the inventor a dime. If the patent clock runs out before they finish their product development, they are free and clear. If it doesn't, they start selling the product anyway. If the inventor can't sue, she has no recourse. Even if the inventor could have potentially developed the product, nobody will finance that because larger competitors will likely beat her to market.
What you really want then is for the patent to be issued, but expire if the holder fails to bring a product to market within a certain time. The patent holder needs the ability to sue during the product development process. Otherwise a competitor could potentially look at what they are doing, copy it, and bring it to market quicker. If the patent holder is unable to sue, they can't get an injunction to force the competitor to stop. By the time the patent holder gets their product ready to market, it may be too late.
The trouble with that is that some technologies take effort to develop from the concept stage to the "marketable product" stage. Unless devices can be patented before this development is done, there is no way to secure financing to develop the product. Prototyping is expensive and takes time. Designing a final product takes further time and money. Building production capacity to actually make that final product takes still more time and money. Who is going to pay for that if someone else could start selling them two days before you're ready to ship your product, and invalidate your patent?
So what? This decision only deals with the case where the poster hasn't gone to such lengths.
If there is no hope of knowing who did it, then the question is moot. The issue here is that in many cases there is an entity that can identify the anonymous poster, such as an ISP or the operator of the website on which the comment was posted. The court has the power to compel that entity to reveal the anonymous poster's identity. This decision sets out rules for when it is appropriate for the court to do that.
That's kind of the point, and is why the change doesn't kick in until a certain number of other states have done likewise. The intent is to get the effect of abandoning the electoral college, without the trouble of actually amending the constitution. By intent, the plan makes the results of the presidential election depend on the national popular vote, not on the distribution of votes in any one state. If states comprising at least 270 electoral college seats pass this legislation, the transition to national popular vote is complete.
Auto registration is controlled by the states, not the federal government, so of course there is no nationally mandated test on cars. Many states do, however, require emissions and/or safety tests as a condition of continuing registration.
The money=labour equation, while valuable, misses how investment works. There are two ways to make money: by labour or by taking on risk. If you buy something and resell it elsewhere at a higher price, some of that final price reflects the labour that went into producing the thing and in moving it from the seller to the subsequent buyer. Some of the price reflects the risk you took in the deal. By buying the thing, you took a risk that you would not be able to sell it for more than you paid. The profit you made on the deal compensates you for the risk you took. If there were no risk, someone would be willing to sell the item for less. Someone starting a business invests labour in producing their product, but also takes a risk: they may lose the money they put into starting the business. Outside investors (eg. in the stock market) take some or all of that risk away from the founders of the company. They make money not because they add labour but because they take risk.
Perhaps, but the reverse can also be bad. Sometimes you need a marketer-type running a business. A lot of tech start-ups fail because the business is run by an inventor or engineer who understands the technology really well, but doesn't understand what the customers want or what kind of business model will work.
That's not actually true. The cabinet secretaries do have to run their own departments and make most decisions on their own. the President makes the big policy decisions. It wouldn't be efficient if the President had to run everything with only advisors to assist him. The cabinet secretaries are managers, not merely advisors.
Actually, there is an important reason for publishing the names of those who are charged with crimes, and it is the same reason why civilized countries have public trials and public court records. Ultimately, the right of the public to observe the court process is what keeps the justice system fair. If the public has no means of determining that someone has been charged with a crime, they can't get involved in watching the trial to ensure that it is fair.
As with sites that use Flash, your site can detect whether the IE user has the plugin and the browser can prompt the user to install it if it is not present. You can't prod users to change browsers, but experience has shown that users can be prodded into installing a plugin if it is required to use a site.
Not at all. Such decisions are made by consensus. No single human being makes the call, and censorship is not permitted.
Secondary sources are citable, although if one is writing a primary source (e.g. a scientific paper) one normally cites other primary sources. I'm not sure why a tertiary source like an encyclopedia wouldn't be citable, but others here assert that they are not.
This is not Wikipedia's policy, although perhaps it happens from time to time. Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" is actually a quite nuanced position. An article in proper NPOV attempts to present all sides of an issue with appropriate (not equal) weight. Minority views are presented as minority views. Views held by extremely small minorities are not presented at all, except in specialized articles dealing with the minority viewpoint. Well-written WP articles present more than a single point of view--they compare and contrast notable views.
This may be partly a supply issue. Since flat-panel TV is moving to the widescreen format, laptop manufacturers probably can get widescreens more cheaply than 4:3 screens of the same size. Expect this trend to continue: in five years there will be nothing but widescreens. Hopefully by then applications will have adjusted to take better advantage of them.
In the long run, there won't be bulbs. Given the long, long lifetime of LEDs, there is no need for a replaceable bulb. It's better engineering to integrate the LEDs into the fixture. You replace the LEDs when you replace the fixture. This also makes sense for LEDs because of their distinct form-factor. Unlike most other light sources, LEDs tend to be directional. It's better to make a fixture that has LEDs pointed in the direction(s) where light is desired, rather than put extra effort into making a "bulb" that distributes light uniformly, and then installing it into a fixture that limits the distribution of light to desired directions with a shade or reflector.
Don't judge us all by the loud members of the Christian Right. There are plenty of Christians who do not behave the way you describe, and who disagree with those who do. Some of us are liberals. Some of us are scientists. Lots of us believe in evolution.
Gravity is an observed fact. Newton's Theory of Gravity is a scientific theory, as is General Relativity (which explains gravity in more detail).
Evolution is an observed fact. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, as are the more modern evolutionary theories which have since replaced it.
The idea that one species can evolve into a completely seperate species ... is what is a theory.
Actually, even that is an observed fact. There are several well-documented examples of the appearance of a new species. IIRC, one was a tree that was a natural hybrid of two other species, and had a different number of chromosomes from either of the two parent species. The hybrid was fertile, but only with itself not with the parent species. The hybrid was thus a distinct, new, species.
Heh, this would seem to kill any attempt to sue over CD ripping, by estoppel.