Hydroelectric damming is a good way to disrupt an ecosystem. The most obvious impact of hydroelectric dams is the flooding of vast areas of land, much of it previously forested or used for agriculture. The size of reservoirs created can be extremely large. The La Grande project in the James Bay region of Quebec has already submerged over 10000 square kilometres of land; and if future plans are carried out, the eventual area of flooding in northern Quebec will be larger than the country of Switzerland.
People like to fancy themselves enlightened these days when they understand the nature of nothing, and have no interest in seeking out any new understanding.
I challenge you to find one food that I can't eat too much of.
Our so-called "science" is ludicrous anyway. Fruit juice is bad for you--too much sugar. I guarantee that consuming fruit juice every single day is healthy; if your body isn't burning the sugar, something is wrong. I bike to work every day--I'm not going to get fat or diabetic from drinking fruit juice on the days I don't bike to work, even if I only drink fruit juice and nothing else.
Today's standard procedure is for a person to wake up, climb out of bed, shower, and either microwave something or get in the car. Sit on your ass while you drive to work, maybe snag food from the drive-through (without ever getting off your ass). Get out of the car, walk as little as possible to the building. Elevator one floor up. Sit at your desk for 8 hours; bring a packed lunch so you don't have to get up to eat. Elevator one floor down. Sit on your ass on the drive home. Sit your ass on the couch with a TV dinner and watch TV for 6 hours. Go to sleep.
There is no way you will ever be healthy. I eat anything I want--fried eggs, bacon, sausage, mushrooms, with bread and cheese and all, all fried in a mixture of butter and lard and bacon grease. Harmless. My sugar intake is incredible--I drink a lot and I mostly drink Tang! I drink tea at work, with a lot of honey in it. My biggest worry is fluoridation of water, especially since tea concentrates so much fluoride already--imagine my intake, compared to the EPA recommended max dosage! All this fat and sugar stuff is just energy--hell, I have gelatinous pre-measured units of energy I keep with me.
I eat whatever I want. I eat when I'm hungry. My body seeks energy. You go on a diet and still get fat and sick and have diabeetus and clogged arteries because you sit on your ass for 18 hours a day and sleep the other six. Nutrition experts tell us all this stuff is good/bad for you based on--imagine this--the sick fat people that never move off their asses.
You're right, the Ninja 650 is now rated at 49mpg, and the Ninja 250R rated over 60.
Still, we're talking about something that weighs 350-550 pounds, versus a 3000 pound 4 door sedan that gets 30mpg. The 650R gets 50mpg instead of 30mpg, and weighs 2500 pounds less; this guy is saying you're going to get massive savings because instead of an 800 pound engine, you have a 150 pound engine. Saving 650 pounds just isn't going to do it. At best you've saved 21% of the weight for 6.3mpg, theoretically; realistically, the rotational and reciprocating mass is more important than the engine block size (i.e. lighter pistons, lighter crank shaft, lighter wheels). A smaller engine block isn't important, and that weight savings might give you a good 2mpg.
To put it into perspective: a 0.25 liter motorcycle at 350 pounds gets 60mpg, while a 0.65 liter motorcycle at 550 pounds gets 50mpg. In theory, where a 2.2L 3000 pound Chevy Cobalt gets a claimed 30mpg (I got 23-24), strapping a god damn huge 2.2L engine onto a 550 pound motorcycle should get you 163mpg because, hey, it's so much lighter. Obviously, that doesn't happen, and the liter bike still gets 40mpg (at probably 800-ish pounds).
The guy babbles a lot about stuff like that, or like how you can run it on soy, or whatever. It's cheaper to manufacture, it will save the world, it will produce as much power as a giant semi that hauls 30,000 pounds from an engine the size of a coffee can... right. And it'll do it at over a hundred miles per gallon with a power-to-weight ratio 100 times higher than current engines.
The MYT engine is a scam. That guy consistently quotes made-up fuel economy numbers, never runs it on fuel in demonstration, and claims higher displacement than the total volume of the engine block itself if it were a rectangular prism instead of a cylinder. He also constantly quotes nonsense about biofuels and talks about non-engine benefits more than engine benefits; his engineering is completely off. All this while claiming that removing some 800 pounds of engine weight will get you 100mpg more--never mind the whole car weighs 3000 pounds, and with 4 passengers you lose 2mpg. Not to mention motorcycles at 60mpg with a much smaller engine, and the whole motorcycle weighs 300 pounds instead of 3000 pounds... but that's for a 250cc, whereas a good 650cc will get you 35mpg tops. The 250cc motorcycle is comparable to the Geo Metro 50mpg car in most aspects.
Yeah, but a round trip on the light rail is $3.20, plus wear and tear and any insurance costs incurred by excess driving (which isn't a problem for me, really, because my lack of a daily commute to work is HUGE to my insurance company--more than half a normal person's driving, and during high risk hours, is the daily work commute). I can carry more home in a car, but I don't; usually a gallon and a half of soy milk, bread, lunch meat for the week, a couple tins of Tang, sometimes I slip a frozen pie in there, a butterflied lamb leg, a couple pounds of cheese... I've come home with $80 of stuff before.
It fits my needs because I live alone and don't need a lot of groceries per week. Some stuff--eggs, for example--I grab for the month. I have a problem here where bread I get seems to not go stale, but after a week it's toxic--the stuff ferments into grain alcohol, I don't understand this. In any case, I can do a week's worth of shopping in one trip; if I had an ExtraWheel or front panniers I could manage double that, but I'd have to take the handicap ramp on and off.
That's my life situation, and why I don't move to the slightly cheaper apartments ($50/mo or so) closer to work. A 7 mile bike ride takes me 45 minutes, while car ride takes almost as long. This is doable for a daily commute, and I'm fine with it. It seems unintuitive, but I really don't want to bike 7 miles out to the light rail to ride up north, then bike back; I don't want to bike 7 miles into the city on impulse to hang out down the harbor or go to the book store or whatever; and so on.
All the things I can do on impulse are just 10 minutes away by bicycle, and my quality of life is higher with that easy reach than with the more economical setup of replacing my high-volume mandatory commute with a shorter commute. Yes, I'd have much less work to put in; no, I don't do the long bike ride for fun, and I'd prefer a shorter commute. Still, the point is I'd face a barrier on the "Let's go out right now" impulse: if I haven't planned for this ahead, I'm facing "I'll be there in an hour, 40 minutes if I really lay some power down" for that, at which point... I'd rather not, and I don't want to drive and deal with parking. My daily commute is daily, I get up in the morning with this in mind, my life is planned around it; it's not an agility thing.
Which is all my point: if I had to work, say, 14 miles north-west... that would destroy my quality of life. I'd have to pay a lot more for gas, wear and tear, and insurance for my car; or just move closer, and drive into the city when I want to go there. Either way, the economic expense of driving would go up significantly since all the good stuff is out of reach suddenly. My employer better give me a $20k raise for that... no, not even; I'm looking for a $15k raise anyway, so I want $35k-$40k. And then my life style would change. The costs are high, higher than just dollars.
His dollar basis and his time basis add up to a good chunk more than $7k, as mine would if I got a different job in a less convenient arrangement.
I bike to work every day. The counter-offer would have to be much larger. My yearly savings for replacing my 7 mile one way commute with a bike ride is on the order of $5k-$8k due to gas prices, insurance prices (30% discount!), maintenance, and of course general vehicle life. I've eliminated 95% of my driving--grocery store is within 1mi, light rail 1/3mi and takes me to a BETTER grocery store 16 miles away for cheaper than gas, there's also a huge commerce center 3 miles away. I'm also in better shape, and it takes me like 5-10 minutes longer to get to and from work (33-40 minute drive median 40, 39-55 minute bike ride median 45). More utility and less time investment than a gym membership, as well as a net savings instead of paying $50-$100 every month.
By putting this guy closer to work, he would have:
A time savings: 1.5 hours becomes 0.5 hours--1 hour a day--if his commute is now 15 minutes, a good 5 hours a week or 12.5% that I'd demand compared as a benefit valued at time-and-a-half (job-related time cost, adds on to my 40 hours, so to me the value is 50% more than my normal pay)
Money savings: Much less wear and tear on the car, less maintenance, less fuel, reduced insurance
Possible alternate benefits: if it's a few miles, he can bike over to work about as fast as he can drive (I manage it with ungodly hills to climb both ways). This means minimal added time investment for non-quantifiable but tangible health benefits
Possible lifestyle benefits: IF you can bike to work, you can probably make bicycling a large alternate transportation part of your lifestyle--which means you quickly figure out how to feasibly and comfortably live as a one-car family (if/when you get married and have kids), which you can then decide for or against as a lifestyle (it depends on how you feel about biking, really)
I would leave the last one out of any negotiations, as it's too fuzzy. However, the salary and time savings would be directly on the table--a raise of $7k and then 18.75% of the resulting salary would provide the direct financial basis. The car use savings would be calculated by comparing the distance, dividing out the fuel cost, and then dividing that by your current after-taxes bracket--if you pay 33% in taxes, divide all that shit by 0.67 and you'll see what your savings would be. If you're going to bicycle to work, you'd do the same except instead of comparing the distance you'd just flatly use your work commute distance (your new daily commute wear and tear on your car is $0).
All things considered, he could put up a lot more than $7k for a $7k raise (yes I know, it's British and more like $12k; ignore, this is conceptual). Say he makes $60k and got $7k. Now he makes $67k. With his commute reduced by 1 hour a day, 5/40 being 1/8 or 12.5%, time and a half giving 12.5% * 1.5 = 18.75%, that's another $12,562.50/year. If we call the savings on his car expenses $5k/year (a low estimate, including reduced wear and tear stretching out vehicle life and thus resulting in more years of use for the same cash, thus lower annualized purchase costs), and his tax rate 33%, we'll call that $7,462.69.
That means his $7k raise represents a small piece of a total $27,025.19 increase to give him the same available benefit per year, including time. $18,106.88 after taxes. That's their matched offer. What he can get in terms of raw money (i.e. ignoring the $12,562.50 from his time compensation) is $9,690 after taxes, or a $14,462.69 raise.
Basically, you won't improve your FINANCIAL situation here by more than $14,462.69/year salary increase. Your LIFE situation (given the basis and raise I provided) is improved by an equivalent of a $27,025.19 raise total--if they give you any less than that, they're not matching the offer.
With a split path, one with a 1pF capacitor and low power isolated by diode off the mains and one with a more substantial capacitor bank (a bank of 3x100uF caps makes my guitar amp hold power for a good 1 second), you could get a pretty good "POWER HAS GONE AWAY" signal that would trigger a performance-impacting fluctuation. CPU immediately halts, pushes cache out. BIOS flat out cuts power to disk immediately; the OS should have the data being written still in RAM, and can get a power fault interrupt and flush all cached data to disk again. With some fancy coding, it could feasibly recognize and verify USB devices and determine if a re-flush is safe and sane.
Look, Uranium, it's higher up than Iron. Heavier, more protons, higher atomic number.
Uranium is hard to fuse. You can't move from Uranium to Plutonium easily, lots of input energy required. It happens, but it's not efficient. Most of the Uranium in breeder reactors turns into lighter elements, and a lot of energy is released. Enrichment setups where you line the walls of the reactor core with Uranium absorb energy lost in reaction to radiation. The natural production of Plutonium occurs the same way.
Conversely, breaking down Helium or Carbon into smaller elements (Hydrogen, Lithium, etc) is not easy. Fusing Li + Li into C would emit energy, whereas fissing He into H would lose energy. It's exactly in reverse.
Iron is the most stable point here. Fissing Iron into lighter elements is hard, and absorbs energy to create mass--the products of the fission are slightly heavier. Fusing iron into heavier elements is also hard, and creates slightly heavier elements.
Nickle is heavier than iron.
Fissing Cu into Ni + H would result in Ni + H + free particles (electrons, neutrons, whatever) that are LIGHTER than the original piece of Cu. This is because part of the mass of the original Cu is released as thermal energy. Conversely, fusing Ni + H into Cu will bind some of the thermal energy input into the structure of the Cu atom, raising the mass of the products.
The big thing Jobs contributed was the drive. Microsoft pushed tablets a decade before the iPad; the Compaq iPaq had a version with a cell phone chip 15 years ago (not to mention handwriting recognition and Microsoft Word); and MP3 players were peaking (and likely to die out) when the iPod appeared. What Steve Jobs did was simple: take existing technology, put it in a cute box with a tiny little screen, and sell it.
The entire concept of Smart Phones would have died without the iPhone. Fact. Palm did it, Palm died. Blackberries are a good example of a dead technology: you can read e-mail on them and do very little, mostly a joke compared to Android and iOS. Blackberries would have likely remained the state of the art, people would have abandoned anything further due to difficulty marketing.
Tablets did die. the iPad is a revival. Remember back in the early 2000 years when laptops had swivel screens that folded back over the keyboard? Where did that go? Where did handwriting recognition go (Microsoft's was excellent in PocketPC 6)?
MP3 players were directionless. The iPod gave direction and long-term capitalization. That's something most technology never gets, and thus it is lost.
No, from a legal standpoint it's a sexual offense. In my state, it's "sexual offense in the $n degree" depending on ages and acts. Pedophilia is a psychological term, and pederasty is the act.
So, it's pedophilia, like when we lock up 19 year old child molesters for screwing 17 year old high school children, right?
We make no distinction in the same way that we make no distinction between embryonic and adult stem cell research in political talk. We make no distinction in the same way we make no distinction between fossil fuels and biodiesel in some political talks (some platforms are taken from the stance that biodiesel pollutes the atmosphere just like petrol--note clean diesel burners only put CO2 and H2O into the air--and thus we should be on electric cars and solar/wind power).
Just because you can't separate blue and green doesn't mean they're not different. You're just suffering from a genetic defect.
It just seems funny to me that the general stance is presented as "animals don't like sex" (in fact, growing up I was taught in school that animals don't have sex for fun--strictly for reproductive purposes, as if they were some enlightened form of beings that have come to look down on the strange and crude act of sex), to the point of considering that sex is a form of cruelty; whereas it is considered a form of cruelty to not cut the sexual organs off the animal.
We should try that with politicians. Sex is cruel, and their nuts should be cut off. It would avoid all that politician abuse by 16 year old pages. Can't have sex with a neutered Mike Foley.
LOL! You think sex with a 16 year old is pedophilia! Hahahahahaha... there's actually another term for that, and they're not "children" but rather "Young Adults." They're not "Pubescent" or "Pre-pubescent" but rather "Adolescent."
I find it hilarious that animal cruelty is defined as "letting your dog put his X X X in your X X X" while PETA feels it's your ethical imperative to cut your dog's nuts off.
What's funny here is even in that limited scope, it's been completely debunked already. Hello, A/52! We know, from constant experience, that imagining your secret system is secure represents a failed strategy. In the case of encryption, we've decided that fewer secrets leaves fewer attack vectors: we *think* our algorithm is secure, but maybe not; we let *everyone* see it, and see if anyone tells us it's broken, and as time goes by we become more and more confident that our algorithm is secure. With these minimal attack vectors, we know we're keeping one secret: the key.
Humans have proven terrible at detecting probes. The constant crapflood doesn't help; it's a good place to hide while you work out the structure of the system. Your secrets are your passwords, keys, and the data they protect.
Yeah this looks like FBOOK_SESSION=824475u2#@87uhuanotuhaLFFF and then facebook invalidates the session, you are now logged out. Logging out is that simple: invalidate the session data. Seems like someone decided to mark the session "Logged Out" instead of just deleting it.
Education is particularly idealistic anyway, and the ideals slant a certain way
I think a more accurate statement is: reality has a well known liberal bias.
No, I mean the concept of public education is an idealistic concept. Teaching as a professor is attractive to people with a certain idealism, and less interesting to others. What you wind up with is people with these ideals teaching. In a lot of cases, they're also protective of their ideals (who isn't?), and will slant their materials away from anything that challenges their views and toward things to push their ideals. In some cases, they're horrid teachers and use their position as a platform to try to shove their ideals down students' throats instead of bothering to teach.
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to subscribe to your news letter. Do you play Go?
Hydroelectric damming is a good way to disrupt an ecosystem. The most obvious impact of hydroelectric dams is the flooding of vast areas of land, much of it previously forested or used for agriculture. The size of reservoirs created can be extremely large. The La Grande project in the James Bay region of Quebec has already submerged over 10000 square kilometres of land; and if future plans are carried out, the eventual area of flooding in northern Quebec will be larger than the country of Switzerland.
An enlightened policy
People like to fancy themselves enlightened these days when they understand the nature of nothing, and have no interest in seeking out any new understanding.
I challenge you to find one food that I can't eat too much of.
Our so-called "science" is ludicrous anyway. Fruit juice is bad for you--too much sugar. I guarantee that consuming fruit juice every single day is healthy; if your body isn't burning the sugar, something is wrong. I bike to work every day--I'm not going to get fat or diabetic from drinking fruit juice on the days I don't bike to work, even if I only drink fruit juice and nothing else.
Today's standard procedure is for a person to wake up, climb out of bed, shower, and either microwave something or get in the car. Sit on your ass while you drive to work, maybe snag food from the drive-through (without ever getting off your ass). Get out of the car, walk as little as possible to the building. Elevator one floor up. Sit at your desk for 8 hours; bring a packed lunch so you don't have to get up to eat. Elevator one floor down. Sit on your ass on the drive home. Sit your ass on the couch with a TV dinner and watch TV for 6 hours. Go to sleep.
There is no way you will ever be healthy. I eat anything I want--fried eggs, bacon, sausage, mushrooms, with bread and cheese and all, all fried in a mixture of butter and lard and bacon grease. Harmless. My sugar intake is incredible--I drink a lot and I mostly drink Tang! I drink tea at work, with a lot of honey in it. My biggest worry is fluoridation of water, especially since tea concentrates so much fluoride already--imagine my intake, compared to the EPA recommended max dosage! All this fat and sugar stuff is just energy--hell, I have gelatinous pre-measured units of energy I keep with me.
I eat whatever I want. I eat when I'm hungry. My body seeks energy. You go on a diet and still get fat and sick and have diabeetus and clogged arteries because you sit on your ass for 18 hours a day and sleep the other six. Nutrition experts tell us all this stuff is good/bad for you based on--imagine this--the sick fat people that never move off their asses.
You're right, the Ninja 650 is now rated at 49mpg, and the Ninja 250R rated over 60.
Still, we're talking about something that weighs 350-550 pounds, versus a 3000 pound 4 door sedan that gets 30mpg. The 650R gets 50mpg instead of 30mpg, and weighs 2500 pounds less; this guy is saying you're going to get massive savings because instead of an 800 pound engine, you have a 150 pound engine. Saving 650 pounds just isn't going to do it. At best you've saved 21% of the weight for 6.3mpg, theoretically; realistically, the rotational and reciprocating mass is more important than the engine block size (i.e. lighter pistons, lighter crank shaft, lighter wheels). A smaller engine block isn't important, and that weight savings might give you a good 2mpg.
To put it into perspective: a 0.25 liter motorcycle at 350 pounds gets 60mpg, while a 0.65 liter motorcycle at 550 pounds gets 50mpg. In theory, where a 2.2L 3000 pound Chevy Cobalt gets a claimed 30mpg (I got 23-24), strapping a god damn huge 2.2L engine onto a 550 pound motorcycle should get you 163mpg because, hey, it's so much lighter. Obviously, that doesn't happen, and the liter bike still gets 40mpg (at probably 800-ish pounds).
The guy babbles a lot about stuff like that, or like how you can run it on soy, or whatever. It's cheaper to manufacture, it will save the world, it will produce as much power as a giant semi that hauls 30,000 pounds from an engine the size of a coffee can... right. And it'll do it at over a hundred miles per gallon with a power-to-weight ratio 100 times higher than current engines.
The MYT engine is a scam. That guy consistently quotes made-up fuel economy numbers, never runs it on fuel in demonstration, and claims higher displacement than the total volume of the engine block itself if it were a rectangular prism instead of a cylinder. He also constantly quotes nonsense about biofuels and talks about non-engine benefits more than engine benefits; his engineering is completely off. All this while claiming that removing some 800 pounds of engine weight will get you 100mpg more--never mind the whole car weighs 3000 pounds, and with 4 passengers you lose 2mpg. Not to mention motorcycles at 60mpg with a much smaller engine, and the whole motorcycle weighs 300 pounds instead of 3000 pounds... but that's for a 250cc, whereas a good 650cc will get you 35mpg tops. The 250cc motorcycle is comparable to the Geo Metro 50mpg car in most aspects.
Yeah, but a round trip on the light rail is $3.20, plus wear and tear and any insurance costs incurred by excess driving (which isn't a problem for me, really, because my lack of a daily commute to work is HUGE to my insurance company--more than half a normal person's driving, and during high risk hours, is the daily work commute). I can carry more home in a car, but I don't; usually a gallon and a half of soy milk, bread, lunch meat for the week, a couple tins of Tang, sometimes I slip a frozen pie in there, a butterflied lamb leg, a couple pounds of cheese... I've come home with $80 of stuff before.
It fits my needs because I live alone and don't need a lot of groceries per week. Some stuff--eggs, for example--I grab for the month. I have a problem here where bread I get seems to not go stale, but after a week it's toxic--the stuff ferments into grain alcohol, I don't understand this. In any case, I can do a week's worth of shopping in one trip; if I had an ExtraWheel or front panniers I could manage double that, but I'd have to take the handicap ramp on and off.
That's my life situation, and why I don't move to the slightly cheaper apartments ($50/mo or so) closer to work. A 7 mile bike ride takes me 45 minutes, while car ride takes almost as long. This is doable for a daily commute, and I'm fine with it. It seems unintuitive, but I really don't want to bike 7 miles out to the light rail to ride up north, then bike back; I don't want to bike 7 miles into the city on impulse to hang out down the harbor or go to the book store or whatever; and so on.
All the things I can do on impulse are just 10 minutes away by bicycle, and my quality of life is higher with that easy reach than with the more economical setup of replacing my high-volume mandatory commute with a shorter commute. Yes, I'd have much less work to put in; no, I don't do the long bike ride for fun, and I'd prefer a shorter commute. Still, the point is I'd face a barrier on the "Let's go out right now" impulse: if I haven't planned for this ahead, I'm facing "I'll be there in an hour, 40 minutes if I really lay some power down" for that, at which point ... I'd rather not, and I don't want to drive and deal with parking. My daily commute is daily, I get up in the morning with this in mind, my life is planned around it; it's not an agility thing.
Which is all my point: if I had to work, say, 14 miles north-west ... that would destroy my quality of life. I'd have to pay a lot more for gas, wear and tear, and insurance for my car; or just move closer, and drive into the city when I want to go there. Either way, the economic expense of driving would go up significantly since all the good stuff is out of reach suddenly. My employer better give me a $20k raise for that... no, not even; I'm looking for a $15k raise anyway, so I want $35k-$40k. And then my life style would change. The costs are high, higher than just dollars.
His dollar basis and his time basis add up to a good chunk more than $7k, as mine would if I got a different job in a less convenient arrangement.
I bike to work every day. The counter-offer would have to be much larger. My yearly savings for replacing my 7 mile one way commute with a bike ride is on the order of $5k-$8k due to gas prices, insurance prices (30% discount!), maintenance, and of course general vehicle life. I've eliminated 95% of my driving--grocery store is within 1mi, light rail 1/3mi and takes me to a BETTER grocery store 16 miles away for cheaper than gas, there's also a huge commerce center 3 miles away. I'm also in better shape, and it takes me like 5-10 minutes longer to get to and from work (33-40 minute drive median 40, 39-55 minute bike ride median 45). More utility and less time investment than a gym membership, as well as a net savings instead of paying $50-$100 every month.
By putting this guy closer to work, he would have:
I would leave the last one out of any negotiations, as it's too fuzzy. However, the salary and time savings would be directly on the table--a raise of $7k and then 18.75% of the resulting salary would provide the direct financial basis. The car use savings would be calculated by comparing the distance, dividing out the fuel cost, and then dividing that by your current after-taxes bracket--if you pay 33% in taxes, divide all that shit by 0.67 and you'll see what your savings would be. If you're going to bicycle to work, you'd do the same except instead of comparing the distance you'd just flatly use your work commute distance (your new daily commute wear and tear on your car is $0).
All things considered, he could put up a lot more than $7k for a $7k raise (yes I know, it's British and more like $12k; ignore, this is conceptual). Say he makes $60k and got $7k. Now he makes $67k. With his commute reduced by 1 hour a day, 5/40 being 1/8 or 12.5%, time and a half giving 12.5% * 1.5 = 18.75%, that's another $12,562.50/year. If we call the savings on his car expenses $5k/year (a low estimate, including reduced wear and tear stretching out vehicle life and thus resulting in more years of use for the same cash, thus lower annualized purchase costs), and his tax rate 33%, we'll call that $7,462.69.
That means his $7k raise represents a small piece of a total $27,025.19 increase to give him the same available benefit per year, including time. $18,106.88 after taxes. That's their matched offer. What he can get in terms of raw money (i.e. ignoring the $12,562.50 from his time compensation) is $9,690 after taxes, or a $14,462.69 raise.
Basically, you won't improve your FINANCIAL situation here by more than $14,462.69/year salary increase. Your LIFE situation (given the basis and raise I provided) is improved by an equivalent of a $27,025.19 raise total--if they give you any less than that, they're not matching the offer.
With a split path, one with a 1pF capacitor and low power isolated by diode off the mains and one with a more substantial capacitor bank (a bank of 3x100uF caps makes my guitar amp hold power for a good 1 second), you could get a pretty good "POWER HAS GONE AWAY" signal that would trigger a performance-impacting fluctuation. CPU immediately halts, pushes cache out. BIOS flat out cuts power to disk immediately; the OS should have the data being written still in RAM, and can get a power fault interrupt and flush all cached data to disk again. With some fancy coding, it could feasibly recognize and verify USB devices and determine if a re-flush is safe and sane.
Sigh.
Look, Uranium, it's higher up than Iron. Heavier, more protons, higher atomic number.
Uranium is hard to fuse. You can't move from Uranium to Plutonium easily, lots of input energy required. It happens, but it's not efficient. Most of the Uranium in breeder reactors turns into lighter elements, and a lot of energy is released. Enrichment setups where you line the walls of the reactor core with Uranium absorb energy lost in reaction to radiation. The natural production of Plutonium occurs the same way.
Conversely, breaking down Helium or Carbon into smaller elements (Hydrogen, Lithium, etc) is not easy. Fusing Li + Li into C would emit energy, whereas fissing He into H would lose energy. It's exactly in reverse.
Iron is the most stable point here. Fissing Iron into lighter elements is hard, and absorbs energy to create mass--the products of the fission are slightly heavier. Fusing iron into heavier elements is also hard, and creates slightly heavier elements.
Nickle is heavier than iron.
Fissing Cu into Ni + H would result in Ni + H + free particles (electrons, neutrons, whatever) that are LIGHTER than the original piece of Cu. This is because part of the mass of the original Cu is released as thermal energy. Conversely, fusing Ni + H into Cu will bind some of the thermal energy input into the structure of the Cu atom, raising the mass of the products.
Life doesn't sustain itself; the entire system relies on solar power.
But fusion increasing from Iron absorbs energy to increase mass. Decreasing from iron as well. Iron is the most stable element.
The big thing Jobs contributed was the drive. Microsoft pushed tablets a decade before the iPad; the Compaq iPaq had a version with a cell phone chip 15 years ago (not to mention handwriting recognition and Microsoft Word); and MP3 players were peaking (and likely to die out) when the iPod appeared. What Steve Jobs did was simple: take existing technology, put it in a cute box with a tiny little screen, and sell it.
The entire concept of Smart Phones would have died without the iPhone. Fact. Palm did it, Palm died. Blackberries are a good example of a dead technology: you can read e-mail on them and do very little, mostly a joke compared to Android and iOS. Blackberries would have likely remained the state of the art, people would have abandoned anything further due to difficulty marketing.
Tablets did die. the iPad is a revival. Remember back in the early 2000 years when laptops had swivel screens that folded back over the keyboard? Where did that go? Where did handwriting recognition go (Microsoft's was excellent in PocketPC 6)?
MP3 players were directionless. The iPod gave direction and long-term capitalization. That's something most technology never gets, and thus it is lost.
No, from a legal standpoint it's a sexual offense. In my state, it's "sexual offense in the $n degree" depending on ages and acts. Pedophilia is a psychological term, and pederasty is the act.
So, it's pedophilia, like when we lock up 19 year old child molesters for screwing 17 year old high school children, right?
We make no distinction in the same way that we make no distinction between embryonic and adult stem cell research in political talk. We make no distinction in the same way we make no distinction between fossil fuels and biodiesel in some political talks (some platforms are taken from the stance that biodiesel pollutes the atmosphere just like petrol--note clean diesel burners only put CO2 and H2O into the air--and thus we should be on electric cars and solar/wind power).
Just because you can't separate blue and green doesn't mean they're not different. You're just suffering from a genetic defect.
It just seems funny to me that the general stance is presented as "animals don't like sex" (in fact, growing up I was taught in school that animals don't have sex for fun--strictly for reproductive purposes, as if they were some enlightened form of beings that have come to look down on the strange and crude act of sex), to the point of considering that sex is a form of cruelty; whereas it is considered a form of cruelty to not cut the sexual organs off the animal.
We should try that with politicians. Sex is cruel, and their nuts should be cut off. It would avoid all that politician abuse by 16 year old pages. Can't have sex with a neutered Mike Foley.
LOL! You think sex with a 16 year old is pedophilia! Hahahahahaha... there's actually another term for that, and they're not "children" but rather "Young Adults." They're not "Pubescent" or "Pre-pubescent" but rather "Adolescent."
English! Do you speak it, motherfucker?!
I find it hilarious that animal cruelty is defined as "letting your dog put his X X X in your X X X" while PETA feels it's your ethical imperative to cut your dog's nuts off.
What's funny here is even in that limited scope, it's been completely debunked already. Hello, A/52! We know, from constant experience, that imagining your secret system is secure represents a failed strategy. In the case of encryption, we've decided that fewer secrets leaves fewer attack vectors: we *think* our algorithm is secure, but maybe not; we let *everyone* see it, and see if anyone tells us it's broken, and as time goes by we become more and more confident that our algorithm is secure. With these minimal attack vectors, we know we're keeping one secret: the key.
Humans have proven terrible at detecting probes. The constant crapflood doesn't help; it's a good place to hide while you work out the structure of the system. Your secrets are your passwords, keys, and the data they protect.
I don't understand. Why would you release an incomplete product?
That's what I'm thinking. How are you able to be targeted for "suspicion"?
Yeah this looks like FBOOK_SESSION=824475u2#@87uhuanotuhaLFFF and then facebook invalidates the session, you are now logged out. Logging out is that simple: invalidate the session data. Seems like someone decided to mark the session "Logged Out" instead of just deleting it.
I have. The game is called Go, and it's been around for over four thousand years.
It often IS Liberal Brainwashing
Education is particularly idealistic anyway, and the ideals slant a certain way
I think a more accurate statement is: reality has a well known liberal bias.
No, I mean the concept of public education is an idealistic concept. Teaching as a professor is attractive to people with a certain idealism, and less interesting to others. What you wind up with is people with these ideals teaching. In a lot of cases, they're also protective of their ideals (who isn't?), and will slant their materials away from anything that challenges their views and toward things to push their ideals. In some cases, they're horrid teachers and use their position as a platform to try to shove their ideals down students' throats instead of bothering to teach.