You can't understand the idea of a right derived from being human? Is that concept too complicated for you? Or what? Do you contest the idea on petulant "you can't know anything" grounds?
Because I gotta say, that makes you seem more like an ethical child than a clever debater, at least to me.
As someone who really detests sweatshops, on the grounds that a safe working environment should be a universal human right, please please stop calling it slavery.
On the one side, it invites people who don't care about the problem to argue semantics, and on the other it makes a false equivalence to real actual slavery that still exists in the world(though is universally illegal).
Please, while out-and-out corruption is a theoretically plausible explanation, the GAO does audit the finances of major (unelected) decision makers sometimes. If there's a legal alternative, it's more plausible, on the simple grounds that it's easier to fly under the radar.
Think more along the lines of "specifically targeting various regulatory requirements NASA has for contractors" or "having lots of ex-Boeing employees working in low engineering review roles" if you're going the route of believing there's manipulation. It's cheaper for them and its legal.
Yes, "very pure" and "hyper pure" are semantically the same. Don't whine at me because I used a prefix where you used an adjective. That's the most pedantic useless complaint I've heard.
I'm glad you made up my mind for me, because I was pretty sure you're an idiot decrying new technology for imagined reasons, using a facile justification, then declaring yourself the victor in an internet debate.
Good job on catching that typo, though. My credibility is ruined now.
This is not the thread to engage me this point. Go back to the one where you made the stupid simplistic statement that didn't adequately reflect reality, and defend what you actually said.
What I'm saying is that these guys go "Supply/demand the end" without consider how those factors are considered. It's far too simplistic and it's like the a sphere of uniform density in a frictionless vacuum is to physics, in that it helps you understand the concepts, but applying it so simplistically is going to get you bad results.
You still need very pure water or you poison the process
This was entirely wrong, and declaring I that "lose" because I correctly identified how the real world does things doesn't have any bearing on me calling you on outright bullshit.
And you'll forgive me if I'm not concerned with your opinions of my posting.
If I had to guess, it's a sign of outdated software, and a bureaucratically enforced software standardization.
h20565 being a server host's identity, www2 being a subnet for their "second generation" website makeover done sometime in the 90s or early 2000s, and the stuff at the end being some sort of session tracking based navigational nightmare.
Okay, sure. There's this thing, you'll learn about if you ever got exposed to the most basic of engineering principles. They're called "Tolerances" where variation in inputs to the process are expected to be within certain bounds. These bounds do not demand perfect ingredients. I mean, you get microscropic tolerances in processes like making microchips, and have clean rooms. But these are the exceptions.
You'll find, for example, that the quality of wood boards varies greatly, and yet we build buildings out of them with astonishing regularity.
Power plant boilers only have coarse filters on local water supplies, as an example dealing with water.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what you're talking about. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about You are a crazy.
Why is it always "econ 101" with you guys? Reducing things to the basics is a great way to engage in reductionistic dismissal of reality. Simple economic policy to place externality costs onto energy producers could radically change what defines "the cheapest".
This joke falls kinda flat because it reads like you're trying to make a point. Like maybe some kinda "nature is always right" naturalistic fallacy.
We still do lighter than air flight with helium(and in the case of weather balloons, hydrogen). Nature has exactly zero precedent for lighter-than air flight, but it's not a bad idea.
Neither article makes any claim of a need for chemical purity of the water. What would coarse filter + reverse osmosis levels of purity be insufficient?
Do you have a third source of information or is this baseless dismissal?
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously?
You can't understand the idea of a right derived from being human? Is that concept too complicated for you? Or what? Do you contest the idea on petulant "you can't know anything" grounds?
Because I gotta say, that makes you seem more like an ethical child than a clever debater, at least to me.
As someone who really detests sweatshops, on the grounds that a safe working environment should be a universal human right, please please stop calling it slavery.
On the one side, it invites people who don't care about the problem to argue semantics, and on the other it makes a false equivalence to real actual slavery that still exists in the world(though is universally illegal).
There will always be some circumstance when bandwidth is limited.
But that won't stop everyone from "modernizing" their sites into things that won't work in low bandwidth browsers.
Fine, allege whatever you want. But if you want people to believe you, you're going to have to submit some kind of evidence of your claims.
Please, while out-and-out corruption is a theoretically plausible explanation, the GAO does audit the finances of major (unelected) decision makers sometimes. If there's a legal alternative, it's more plausible, on the simple grounds that it's easier to fly under the radar.
Think more along the lines of "specifically targeting various regulatory requirements NASA has for contractors" or "having lots of ex-Boeing employees working in low engineering review roles" if you're going the route of believing there's manipulation. It's cheaper for them and its legal.
Why don't they just have the space station sound stage on earth, like the moon one, why do they need to fake being in space in orbit?
It finally pays off.
Yes, "very pure" and "hyper pure" are semantically the same. Don't whine at me because I used a prefix where you used an adjective. That's the most pedantic useless complaint I've heard.
You doofus.
Because it's 101 and not 201?
Prove it
Oh yes, let's time travel to this specific historical event and objectively test what happened.
I seem to recall that's havard's policy, more or less.
I'm glad you made up my mind for me, because I was pretty sure you're an idiot decrying new technology for imagined reasons, using a facile justification, then declaring yourself the victor in an internet debate.
Good job on catching that typo, though. My credibility is ruined now.
This is not the thread to engage me this point. Go back to the one where you made the stupid simplistic statement that didn't adequately reflect reality, and defend what you actually said.
What I'm saying is that these guys go "Supply/demand the end" without consider how those factors are considered. It's far too simplistic and it's like the a sphere of uniform density in a frictionless vacuum is to physics, in that it helps you understand the concepts, but applying it so simplistically is going to get you bad results.
They do require power for flight, though. The power is wind energy.
Please.
The intellectually hard work of software isn't the idea. It's almost entirely within the coding.
Do you remember the party where you said
This was entirely wrong, and declaring I that "lose" because I correctly identified how the real world does things doesn't have any bearing on me calling you on outright bullshit.
And you'll forgive me if I'm not concerned with your opinions of my posting.
If I had to guess, it's a sign of outdated software, and a bureaucratically enforced software standardization.
h20565 being a server host's identity, www2 being a subnet for their "second generation" website makeover done sometime in the 90s or early 2000s, and the stuff at the end being some sort of session tracking based navigational nightmare.
The existence of measurable standards is not the same as hyper-purity, you doofus
Okay, sure. There's this thing, you'll learn about if you ever got exposed to the most basic of engineering principles. They're called "Tolerances" where variation in inputs to the process are expected to be within certain bounds. These bounds do not demand perfect ingredients. I mean, you get microscropic tolerances in processes like making microchips, and have clean rooms. But these are the exceptions.
You'll find, for example, that the quality of wood boards varies greatly, and yet we build buildings out of them with astonishing regularity.
Power plant boilers only have coarse filters on local water supplies, as an example dealing with water.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about
You are a crazy.
Why is it always "econ 101" with you guys? Reducing things to the basics is a great way to engage in reductionistic dismissal of reality. Simple economic policy to place externality costs onto energy producers could radically change what defines "the cheapest".
...
Okay, making up universal principles of industry was not a direction I expected this to go.
You're crazy.
This joke falls kinda flat because it reads like you're trying to make a point. Like maybe some kinda "nature is always right" naturalistic fallacy.
We still do lighter than air flight with helium(and in the case of weather balloons, hydrogen). Nature has exactly zero precedent for lighter-than air flight, but it's not a bad idea.
Neither article makes any claim of a need for chemical purity of the water. What would coarse filter + reverse osmosis levels of purity be insufficient?
Do you have a third source of information or is this baseless dismissal?
...
It still takes more energy to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen than it releases by reacting.
Do you mean, "Why not this instead of photosynthesis?"
And that's because hydrogen is chemically unstable and hard to store compared to sugars. Neither of those are good things for living creatures.