It's hard to control for caloric intake. You're relying on people self-reporting.
Also, contrary to popular myth, all calories are not the same. Your body absorbs much more energy from 100 calories of sugar, for example, than it does from 100 calories of raw vegetables. This is because calorie content is based on laboratory measurements and does not factor in calories lost when food is harder to digest, or when food is not fully digested (in which case the energy is instead absorbed/used by bacteria in the colon).
I'm laughing really hard right now. How do they have any idea how long it would take to develop fusion power? Or how much money it might take? It's entirely possible that you could draw the "never" line on that graph at $100 billion a year. We just don't know.
Remember, at the time they thought we just needed to refine magnetic confinement. That's been an interesting scientific problem, but even more problematic than anyone expected. IIRC, it's now been shown mathematically that you cannot fully confine plasma into a toroid using magnetic fields. So you have to work the reactor design such that the leaks are confined to areas with extra shielding.
ITER will cost EUR15 billion, and maybe will lead to a much more expensive follow-on plant. The follow-on plant would still only be a commercial pilot plant (best case).
(In fainess, though, a nuclear aircraft carrier costs $10 billion, so we're still not talking about budget-breaking projects if the U.S. were to throw all-in.)
The Iowa is vulnerable to torpedo attack below the water line and missile attacks hitting the deck. The 13-inch armor tapers off below the water line to a thickness of 4 inches. The top deck is armored, but it's not 13 inches thick. Reprogram an anti-ship missile to do final approach by pulling up and diving on the deck... and an Iowa is finished.
The Iowas were designed to withstand rounds from big guns hitting the side of the ship at or above the water-line. They were not designed to withstand missiles which could come in at other trajectories. Also, their anti-torpedo defenses (outer hulls outside the armor designed to detonate a torpedo early) were considered sub-par even at the time, but the limitations were discovered too late in development to change the design.
The kinetic energy release of a railgun round hitting near you will be very similar to an explosion. You would not want to be near one as it slammed into the ground or water.
An hour would be the maximum flight time if an ICBM were exactly half-way around the earth from the launch site. More likely closer to 45 minutes. A carrier can only travel about 35 miles per hour. I know I wouldn't want to be on an aircraft carrier 35 miles from ground zero, even if it were a small warhead on that bird.
The point about carriers vs other ships is that they have a big flat area on top that can be used for a variety of purposes. Even if you built a big battle ship that could also serve as a hospital, power generation unit and provide food/water supplies, you wouldn't have the transportation options of landing helicopters or transport planes on the thing.
I've replaced the MicroUSB connector in my cellphone *twice*... Supposedly these things are rated for 10,000 cycles, but I haven't seen it... I've caught the cord of my phone multiple times and pulled it off the desk onto the floor - and my cats/dogs have probably done it more times than I have.
You suggested they were just trying to rile me up or that I was misunderstanding them. Neither is the case. It is merely convenient for you to suggest that many of your fellow Republicans are not self-deluded ideologs, since I must certainly be misinterpreting them.
Way to excuse your partisan comrades. Neither of your excuses fits the facts. These are otherwise smart guys who have simply taken the position that anthropogenic warming does not exist. None of them will even attempt to answer the question "Which part of global warming do you disagree with: the fact that CO2 traps heat or the fact that CO2 in the atmosphere has increased?" That question simply gets ignored. Literally, they will not address it if asked. I have had guys storm out of my office when asked that question. Usually with a line like "read those emails". As if incriminating emails from a single climate scientist somehow has anything to do with the physics of CO2 absorbing infrared radiation.
Furthermore, there are hundreds if not thousands of scientists in the field of climate study. Emails from one or two are meaningless in the context of the overwhelming evidence for anthropogenic warming. Even the lead author of a Koch-funded study now agrees.
Does the Republican base know he thinks that? Because that does not represent what any Republican I know actually believes. The guys at work literally believe that anthropogenic global warming is a purposeful hoax committed by scientists with "an agenda". As usual for ideologs, they are very vague about what that agenda might be, of course.
Freedom doesn't mean no one who works for the government will ever ask you to do something you don't want to do. Freedom just means you have the right to say "no" if they ask you to do it.
If there is such a state law, it should be in the statutes. All you have to do is show me the statute. What do you want me to do, quote the entirety of Mississippi statutory law in a Slashdot post to prove it's not there? I've never posted anything that long, I wonder if Slashdot posts have a length limit.
And the limits are generally that actual physical ID is not required. It is only required that you answer the question "what is your name". Police can also ask other questions related to their investigations, but that is outside the topic of "are you required to carry ID in the U.S."
Nothing on there about showing ID. That case is about someone who refused to answer the question "what is your name".
The Arizona statute is about police confirming immigration status. It's being upheld had essentially nothing to do with "papers please" aspect of the law. Even then, police will need some reason to believe you might not be a citizen in order to ask for papers -- a provision just screaming for racial profiling problems, btw. Also, the court expressed skepticism about this aspect of the law, in a way that implies they will be very willing to review that aspect later, once actual cases start occuring.
Slashdot Mirror
It's hard to control for caloric intake. You're relying on people self-reporting.
Also, contrary to popular myth, all calories are not the same. Your body absorbs much more energy from 100 calories of sugar, for example, than it does from 100 calories of raw vegetables. This is because calorie content is based on laboratory measurements and does not factor in calories lost when food is harder to digest, or when food is not fully digested (in which case the energy is instead absorbed/used by bacteria in the colon).
And that original iconic Coca-Cola bottle was 8 ounces.
BPA-free plastic has other chemicals that replace the functionality of BPA. We know less about those chemicals than we do about BPA. Pick your poison.
Many a budget has been busted by orders of magnitude using those types of assumptions.
I'm laughing really hard right now. How do they have any idea how long it would take to develop fusion power? Or how much money it might take? It's entirely possible that you could draw the "never" line on that graph at $100 billion a year. We just don't know.
Remember, at the time they thought we just needed to refine magnetic confinement. That's been an interesting scientific problem, but even more problematic than anyone expected. IIRC, it's now been shown mathematically that you cannot fully confine plasma into a toroid using magnetic fields. So you have to work the reactor design such that the leaks are confined to areas with extra shielding.
ITER will cost EUR15 billion, and maybe will lead to a much more expensive follow-on plant. The follow-on plant would still only be a commercial pilot plant (best case).
(In fainess, though, a nuclear aircraft carrier costs $10 billion, so we're still not talking about budget-breaking projects if the U.S. were to throw all-in.)
Early 80s?
Awesome... then the patents are expired and cars using the technology will be coming out ten years ago.
Or does every car maker in the world have interlocking directorships with Exxon Mobil?
The Iowa is vulnerable to torpedo attack below the water line and missile attacks hitting the deck. The 13-inch armor tapers off below the water line to a thickness of 4 inches. The top deck is armored, but it's not 13 inches thick. Reprogram an anti-ship missile to do final approach by pulling up and diving on the deck... and an Iowa is finished.
The Iowas were designed to withstand rounds from big guns hitting the side of the ship at or above the water-line. They were not designed to withstand missiles which could come in at other trajectories. Also, their anti-torpedo defenses (outer hulls outside the armor designed to detonate a torpedo early) were considered sub-par even at the time, but the limitations were discovered too late in development to change the design.
The kinetic energy release of a railgun round hitting near you will be very similar to an explosion. You would not want to be near one as it slammed into the ground or water.
An hour would be the maximum flight time if an ICBM were exactly half-way around the earth from the launch site. More likely closer to 45 minutes. A carrier can only travel about 35 miles per hour. I know I wouldn't want to be on an aircraft carrier 35 miles from ground zero, even if it were a small warhead on that bird.
The point about carriers vs other ships is that they have a big flat area on top that can be used for a variety of purposes. Even if you built a big battle ship that could also serve as a hospital, power generation unit and provide food/water supplies, you wouldn't have the transportation options of landing helicopters or transport planes on the thing.
I've replaced the MicroUSB connector in my cellphone *twice*... Supposedly these things are rated for 10,000 cycles, but I haven't seen it... I've caught the cord of my phone multiple times and pulled it off the desk onto the floor - and my cats/dogs have probably done it more times than I have.
I think I see the problem
You suggested they were just trying to rile me up or that I was misunderstanding them. Neither is the case. It is merely convenient for you to suggest that many of your fellow Republicans are not self-deluded ideologs, since I must certainly be misinterpreting them.
Way to excuse your partisan comrades. Neither of your excuses fits the facts. These are otherwise smart guys who have simply taken the position that anthropogenic warming does not exist. None of them will even attempt to answer the question "Which part of global warming do you disagree with: the fact that CO2 traps heat or the fact that CO2 in the atmosphere has increased?" That question simply gets ignored. Literally, they will not address it if asked. I have had guys storm out of my office when asked that question. Usually with a line like "read those emails". As if incriminating emails from a single climate scientist somehow has anything to do with the physics of CO2 absorbing infrared radiation.
Furthermore, there are hundreds if not thousands of scientists in the field of climate study. Emails from one or two are meaningless in the context of the overwhelming evidence for anthropogenic warming. Even the lead author of a Koch-funded study now agrees.
Romney cannot spell out what HE would do but he can blame Obama for doing what Obama has done.
Isn't that the entirety of Romney's campaign strategy?
Does the Republican base know he thinks that? Because that does not represent what any Republican I know actually believes. The guys at work literally believe that anthropogenic global warming is a purposeful hoax committed by scientists with "an agenda". As usual for ideologs, they are very vague about what that agenda might be, of course.
Freedom doesn't mean no one who works for the government will ever ask you to do something you don't want to do. Freedom just means you have the right to say "no" if they ask you to do it.
If there is such a state law, it should be in the statutes. All you have to do is show me the statute. What do you want me to do, quote the entirety of Mississippi statutory law in a Slashdot post to prove it's not there? I've never posted anything that long, I wonder if Slashdot posts have a length limit.
Again, you've made the claim. Burden's on you to support it. There's no evidence anywhere else that it's true.
LOL... you made the claim. There's no evidence anywhere I've looked that it's true.
That doesn't really make it legal to detain you.
Corrupt cops are corrupt? True. Their corruption may be hard to prove? True. Their corruption is legal? False.
No. They have to have suspicion of your involvement. Their definition of "suspicion" may differ from yours, but that's what courts are for.
Not true. Try again.
And the limits are generally that actual physical ID is not required. It is only required that you answer the question "what is your name". Police can also ask other questions related to their investigations, but that is outside the topic of "are you required to carry ID in the U.S."
There's a difference between having to show ID, and having to answer the question "what is your name".
YOU are therefore the retard, retard.
Nothing on there about showing ID. That case is about someone who refused to answer the question "what is your name".
The Arizona statute is about police confirming immigration status. It's being upheld had essentially nothing to do with "papers please" aspect of the law. Even then, police will need some reason to believe you might not be a citizen in order to ask for papers -- a provision just screaming for racial profiling problems, btw. Also, the court expressed skepticism about this aspect of the law, in a way that implies they will be very willing to review that aspect later, once actual cases start occuring.