Probably the same way every other nation does, the physical network continues seamlessly from one nation into another and the only difference is that if you connect to the wrong tower you get to pay "roaming" fees. I haven't tried it with Luxembourg specifically but when I was near the Austrian border my cellphone could select networks from both sides of the border.
Saying "there's a chance someone intelligent altered our environment" isn't something really useful. A scientific theory is formed because there's inexplicable data, not because someone has a hunch that it could be true because otherwise we end up with philosophy, not science. Sure we could argue philosophy and reach the strangest conclusions but I'm not convinced there's any point in doing so. The universe could have popped into existence five minutes ago or even just now but there's no real point to talkling about that because it wouldn't help us any. If your personal version of ID is a philosophy that's nice but still not something that fits into a discussion about science or claims that wish they were science. Of course it's possible that someone changed the environment, as I said it's possible that the universe just popped into existence or that there's an invisible pink unicorn guiding everyone's fate but we have to reason to assume it's what actually happened because we have seen no evidence that suggests something like that happened.
However, PC vs. Wii is still 40€ for the game that runs on a Core2Duo while it's 60€ for the Wii game. Or 40€ for a game for the DS (which I think has two processors) compared to the 60€ for the Wii.
if p0 is working on c why does p1 need to be able to reach it ?
Depends but usually it's the job of the programmer to make sure that p1 can't access c while p0 is working on it. The compiler can't reason that for you (of course, compilers get more intelligent by the day) so you have to tell it that p1 has no business accessing c while p0 is using it. Pushing c to some other hardware thing doesn't solve the issue of read->process->write happening over several cycles and possibly concurrently so p1 reads and processes, p2 reads, p1 writes, p2 processes and writes and you lost p1's result.
It's not a new issue for multiprocessor systems (other than adding bottlenecks), preemptive multitasking can already cause the same issues.
They don't just set it, they read, modify, THEN set it. E.g. two threads, one counts mouseclicks and the other counts keypresses and both add their numbers to the same counter. You could add one counter for each thread but now say we have threads that are spawned at a specific interrupt, calculate for a while and then write their result somewhere. How do you fit that into a formula?
That still has issues, e.g. the function calls for modifying it happen simultaneously, you have to order them somehow to make sure all of that is still executed only singlethreaded but you have to prevent simultaneous writing to the queue as well, etc.
Often social systems are cheaper than the alternative, e.g. people going bankrupt because they got an expensive to treat illness and reduced worker performance because they don't want to "waste" money on a minor illness that can then develop into a major illness.
In fact some car makers here have introduced additional social benefits for their employees since they found that a cared for employee performs better than a hire-burn-fire employee, especially in a field where the jobs get increasingly complex, require increasingly higher education and have to be hired out of a smaller and smaller pool of suitable workers. These days we see car makers advertise university courses simply because the output of graduates that can perform these jobs is too low.
I'm not sure it's even possible to move those jobs into cheaper countries, the country needs an educational system with access for enough people to create a good workforce as the demand for sweatshop workers decreases and we need more and more engineers just to keep those assembly lines running.
A cheap currency is not necessarily a disadvantage, it means your exports are cheaper. Some export-dependent countries try to actively lower their currency value since it's good for an export-heavy economy.
Sounds good, one of the reasons chinese goods are so cheap is because they don't have to care about anything but the profit. Forcing some good practices on them would force them to raise their prices, giving the domestic industries that have to obey good practices a higher chance to compete as well as reducing the benefit of letting everything get made in China. It'll result in higher prices but realistically the only way to get cheap stuff is to use what amounts to slaves, either cheap human labour or machines, you can't make cheap goods if the same people that buy them also make them.
Plants store CO2 and release it as they die and dissolve so you'd need a growing plant mass to reduce atmospheric CO2. This mass also includes wood used for furniture or houses and such so it's no big deal (for the greenhouse effect, not the native animals) to destroy a forest provided you don't impact the plant growth rate (which you will if you kill a whole forest but removing some trees from it won't hurt) and don't let the harvested plant mass release its CO2. Of course in practice deforestation usually happens with fire and to use the land the forest was on, especially in tropical climates where the land lacks minerals and the normal farming practices (there are less destructive ways but they aren't as profitable in the short term) leave it as a wasteland after 2-3 years.
If you tell them they have to cut their current emission level by n% only negative output would still fit into the limit. They could convert their existing ones to cleaner tech but that would still only fit one new factory per x converted factories and the more factories you have to convert the more new ones you can build. A country with ten factories that could shave 30% pollution off could make 3 new factories but a country with a hundred factories that could have their output cut by 30% would be able to make at least 30 new factories (this is for now ignoring the lowering of the bar). Limits should be oriented on a metric like the population instead of the current output since otherwise countries like the poorer African ones get screwed over as their economy cannot increase anymore while the western countries retain their advantage of a larger industry, just with a few filters added.
Also it hurts those more who already invested in cleaner tech. A country that has already converted its factories to the best there are would have to shut some down to fit into a blanket reduction while a country running really crappy factories would just have to upgrade a few of them while still being able to leave loads of heavy polluters online (big advantage for China there).
They may just have figured that someone has to make those environment-firendly factories and that the more they push for them the more their own economy will develop them, prepared to sell them to others who hop on the environment train much later.
Cutting for everyone equally is unfair to those who haven't accumulated as much as others. Many countries have a really weak economy, telling them they can't even build any new factories would be like saying them "We're rich, you're poor and we're making sure it stays that way". Hell, you could cheat it by temporarily boosting your emissions like mad over the sampling period, then remove the boosts and have plenty of room left for your economy to grow.
I don't think it's the produce that really makes the difference, "organic" (I take it that's not the chemical definition) food usually lacks the additives used in large-scale commercial products. This often results in a much weaker taste. Let's just say I'll never again try eating organic peanut butter...
Our school bible (went to a private, religious school) mentioned in a verse about the Leviathan that it probably describes a crocodile. The words snake and dragon are used interchangeably throughout the Bible and related texts.
The issue is that e.g. the chimp in the zoo was taken from a species that developed roughly simultaneously with the species that now shapes its environment whereas ID seeks to act as a theory for where all life came from. If the designer is exempt from the rules that something complex cannot have developed at random, where did the designer come from and why can't everything else have come from the same source? If that source can produce a being capable of high intelligence and creating the universe, why can't it produce something much more simple, e.g. the universe itself? After all, since we haven't seen any intelligent designers spontaneously form in nature or in any experiments such a thing can't be very simple, right? And since we haven't found any way to shape a universe with such precision that would be something of far higher complexity than we are. So why do we have to explain something complex by saying "such complexity can't happen by itself, it was created by something significantly more complex"?
The thing is that ID is something that should not even be considered until EVERY less complex theory has been disproven since until then we have no reason to assume something is more complex than our model that describes the data perfectly.
But what about the water? If the Bible was right and the whole planet was flooded 4000 years ago there would've been a LOT more water on the planet at that time. Where did all that water go? We now know that water doesn't simply vanish, it follows a cycle and such amounts of water would have to go somewhere.
And the whole 'You can't prove evolution' argument is false. It can be viewed, recorded and reproduced in micro-cultures easily and it's effects can be extrapolated equally in the macroscopic universe looking at many things such as DNA similarities and physical similarities between varying species.
Don't forget that creationists claim there is some invisible line between "micro" and "macroevolution" which I think they draw between phylums and say that only microevolution has been proven. Of course they haven't bothered to show any data that suggests this line needs to be drawn in first place...
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, that depends entirely on the favourite fetish of the involved writer(s).
Probably the same way every other nation does, the physical network continues seamlessly from one nation into another and the only difference is that if you connect to the wrong tower you get to pay "roaming" fees. I haven't tried it with Luxembourg specifically but when I was near the Austrian border my cellphone could select networks from both sides of the border.
I thought the GP was being sarcastic, especially the "pseudo-scientific reports" comment.
Saying "there's a chance someone intelligent altered our environment" isn't something really useful. A scientific theory is formed because there's inexplicable data, not because someone has a hunch that it could be true because otherwise we end up with philosophy, not science. Sure we could argue philosophy and reach the strangest conclusions but I'm not convinced there's any point in doing so. The universe could have popped into existence five minutes ago or even just now but there's no real point to talkling about that because it wouldn't help us any. If your personal version of ID is a philosophy that's nice but still not something that fits into a discussion about science or claims that wish they were science. Of course it's possible that someone changed the environment, as I said it's possible that the universe just popped into existence or that there's an invisible pink unicorn guiding everyone's fate but we have to reason to assume it's what actually happened because we have seen no evidence that suggests something like that happened.
Games often use cooperative multitasking but preemptive multitasking is rare.
However, PC vs. Wii is still 40€ for the game that runs on a Core2Duo while it's 60€ for the Wii game. Or 40€ for a game for the DS (which I think has two processors) compared to the 60€ for the Wii.
Starting a thread is easy, making sure the thing doesn't crash is the hard part.
if p0 is working on c why does p1 need to be able to reach it ?
Depends but usually it's the job of the programmer to make sure that p1 can't access c while p0 is working on it. The compiler can't reason that for you (of course, compilers get more intelligent by the day) so you have to tell it that p1 has no business accessing c while p0 is using it. Pushing c to some other hardware thing doesn't solve the issue of read->process->write happening over several cycles and possibly concurrently so p1 reads and processes, p2 reads, p1 writes, p2 processes and writes and you lost p1's result.
It's not a new issue for multiprocessor systems (other than adding bottlenecks), preemptive multitasking can already cause the same issues.
They don't just set it, they read, modify, THEN set it. E.g. two threads, one counts mouseclicks and the other counts keypresses and both add their numbers to the same counter. You could add one counter for each thread but now say we have threads that are spawned at a specific interrupt, calculate for a while and then write their result somewhere. How do you fit that into a formula?
That still has issues, e.g. the function calls for modifying it happen simultaneously, you have to order them somehow to make sure all of that is still executed only singlethreaded but you have to prevent simultaneous writing to the queue as well, etc.
Often social systems are cheaper than the alternative, e.g. people going bankrupt because they got an expensive to treat illness and reduced worker performance because they don't want to "waste" money on a minor illness that can then develop into a major illness.
In fact some car makers here have introduced additional social benefits for their employees since they found that a cared for employee performs better than a hire-burn-fire employee, especially in a field where the jobs get increasingly complex, require increasingly higher education and have to be hired out of a smaller and smaller pool of suitable workers. These days we see car makers advertise university courses simply because the output of graduates that can perform these jobs is too low.
I'm not sure it's even possible to move those jobs into cheaper countries, the country needs an educational system with access for enough people to create a good workforce as the demand for sweatshop workers decreases and we need more and more engineers just to keep those assembly lines running.
A cheap currency is not necessarily a disadvantage, it means your exports are cheaper. Some export-dependent countries try to actively lower their currency value since it's good for an export-heavy economy.
Sounds good, one of the reasons chinese goods are so cheap is because they don't have to care about anything but the profit. Forcing some good practices on them would force them to raise their prices, giving the domestic industries that have to obey good practices a higher chance to compete as well as reducing the benefit of letting everything get made in China. It'll result in higher prices but realistically the only way to get cheap stuff is to use what amounts to slaves, either cheap human labour or machines, you can't make cheap goods if the same people that buy them also make them.
Plants store CO2 and release it as they die and dissolve so you'd need a growing plant mass to reduce atmospheric CO2. This mass also includes wood used for furniture or houses and such so it's no big deal (for the greenhouse effect, not the native animals) to destroy a forest provided you don't impact the plant growth rate (which you will if you kill a whole forest but removing some trees from it won't hurt) and don't let the harvested plant mass release its CO2. Of course in practice deforestation usually happens with fire and to use the land the forest was on, especially in tropical climates where the land lacks minerals and the normal farming practices (there are less destructive ways but they aren't as profitable in the short term) leave it as a wasteland after 2-3 years.
If you tell them they have to cut their current emission level by n% only negative output would still fit into the limit. They could convert their existing ones to cleaner tech but that would still only fit one new factory per x converted factories and the more factories you have to convert the more new ones you can build. A country with ten factories that could shave 30% pollution off could make 3 new factories but a country with a hundred factories that could have their output cut by 30% would be able to make at least 30 new factories (this is for now ignoring the lowering of the bar). Limits should be oriented on a metric like the population instead of the current output since otherwise countries like the poorer African ones get screwed over as their economy cannot increase anymore while the western countries retain their advantage of a larger industry, just with a few filters added.
Also it hurts those more who already invested in cleaner tech. A country that has already converted its factories to the best there are would have to shut some down to fit into a blanket reduction while a country running really crappy factories would just have to upgrade a few of them while still being able to leave loads of heavy polluters online (big advantage for China there).
They may just have figured that someone has to make those environment-firendly factories and that the more they push for them the more their own economy will develop them, prepared to sell them to others who hop on the environment train much later.
Cutting for everyone equally is unfair to those who haven't accumulated as much as others. Many countries have a really weak economy, telling them they can't even build any new factories would be like saying them "We're rich, you're poor and we're making sure it stays that way". Hell, you could cheat it by temporarily boosting your emissions like mad over the sampling period, then remove the boosts and have plenty of room left for your economy to grow.
I don't think it's the produce that really makes the difference, "organic" (I take it that's not the chemical definition) food usually lacks the additives used in large-scale commercial products. This often results in a much weaker taste. Let's just say I'll never again try eating organic peanut butter...
"Tea" just means the water is served too hot for drinking.
Um, you know that there's more than one type of diabetes, right?
Our school bible (went to a private, religious school) mentioned in a verse about the Leviathan that it probably describes a crocodile. The words snake and dragon are used interchangeably throughout the Bible and related texts.
The issue is that e.g. the chimp in the zoo was taken from a species that developed roughly simultaneously with the species that now shapes its environment whereas ID seeks to act as a theory for where all life came from. If the designer is exempt from the rules that something complex cannot have developed at random, where did the designer come from and why can't everything else have come from the same source? If that source can produce a being capable of high intelligence and creating the universe, why can't it produce something much more simple, e.g. the universe itself? After all, since we haven't seen any intelligent designers spontaneously form in nature or in any experiments such a thing can't be very simple, right? And since we haven't found any way to shape a universe with such precision that would be something of far higher complexity than we are. So why do we have to explain something complex by saying "such complexity can't happen by itself, it was created by something significantly more complex"?
The thing is that ID is something that should not even be considered until EVERY less complex theory has been disproven since until then we have no reason to assume something is more complex than our model that describes the data perfectly.
But what about the water? If the Bible was right and the whole planet was flooded 4000 years ago there would've been a LOT more water on the planet at that time. Where did all that water go? We now know that water doesn't simply vanish, it follows a cycle and such amounts of water would have to go somewhere.
And the whole 'You can't prove evolution' argument is false. It can be viewed, recorded and reproduced in micro-cultures easily and it's effects can be extrapolated equally in the macroscopic universe looking at many things such as DNA similarities and physical similarities between varying species.
Don't forget that creationists claim there is some invisible line between "micro" and "macroevolution" which I think they draw between phylums and say that only microevolution has been proven. Of course they haven't bothered to show any data that suggests this line needs to be drawn in first place...
That hat seems to me like it'd make a nice tinfoil hat alternative.