I forgot to mention: I think a tank and modern anti house 'Panzerfausts' would do the trick easily and quickly. And: you do know that an G3 or G36 or M16 shoots through most walls?
And perhaps you are just bad with words, but being 'point' and 'leading' is not the same thing.
I choosed my wording wrong, that is all. Bottom line we have _no_ gun violence, armed robbery etc. in Europe. The amount of _no_ may vary. Next time I chose my words better and point out: in Germany with 80 million inhabitants we have less than 10 armed robberies per year, while gods own country has about 10 per day (with 400 million inhabitants).
And that is 100% correct. But unless you are a homocidal maniac, you would use dummies instead of real people. Then we still don't know if the placebo will fail on rwal people or if the real chutes work on real people.
You are just the idiot I adressed with my previous post.
When Gallileo discovered the laws of gravity, he had no placebo gravity, placebo stones, placebo tower etc. to make his experiments with.
If there is a law that describes your experiments and the results you expect, you don't need a placebo law, placebo experiemt etc. placebo group.
Your parent thinks that SpaceX/Elon will overstretch their resources and fail on that level,and Boing remains. It is not a question of technology but money, how you spend it and how you earn it.
Bronce is not harder, it is softer, both than iron and steel. However it is not as brittle as 'bad' iron/steel.
Bottom line it is not a question of rarity but industry. The indusrty slowly shifted to iron. And a workshop that was producing iron, probably could not afford to habe a second branch for iron. It might also be a matter of style, who wants an old school bronce knive when he can have a nice glittering steel knive?
Both technologies existed at the same time, e.g. spartan spears had an iron/steal tip. But the tip on the back side was bronce, so was their sword and armor and shield.
Being clever or not has not much to do with 'technology level'. Most people I ever met don't know why a circle has 360 degrees... I would call that 'not clever', most people I know can not skin an animal or cut the meat from the bones, or sail a boat ar build a shelter... sounds all very unclever to me. But they all handle a smart phone and can even operate difficult to handle micro waves... not sure how clever that is.
Oki, I give me few cents to that thread: Iron unlike copper etc. is not simply 'melted' out of ore. Iron only exists in various forms of iron oxices, which need to be 'reduced', you need heat and something that takes the oxide out of the iron ore (and in that process the iron is melted) For that you use cornon monoxide, aka burning charr coal ember, and obviously you need a hot fire.
So the main diffence to copper smelting is not the heat alone but the amount of carbon monoxide you can produce in the fire,
Of course you can "get in" The smallest amount is something like a 0.000000000001 bitcoin. Worth... hm, 20 cents? To lazy to do the math. But why would you want to get in? To realize your friend in europe get rich when BC rose from 8k to 17k, while you were asleep? And the you get poor because it drops while you sleep again from 17k to 4k?
Every climate model also moddels water vapour, are you really such an idiot? I don't know about trillions of money going from the US to China, tell me more about it. Does the US have such a budget? Who does get the mone?
If the data collected by some sensors is wrong, wrong in a deterministic way, you obviously correct it. Or what would you do? The alrernative is to ditch the data of the malfunctioning sensors.
Dept can not be increased endless. Regardless if you are a Rep or a Dem.
Depts are payed back with tax money, If you increase depts indefinitley at some point you would spent all the tax money for reducing depts, or file bankrupt and start over again.
That is a no brainer, for both Reps as Dems... now pick your stance.
You are an double idiot because you don't even grasp your own language.
We have three kinds of trends: flat, increase, decrease. E.g. we could have an increase of rents by about 10% over 3 years as a trend.
Suddenly we have only 7% over a course of 3 years. So the trend decreased (the trend is down) but the direction of the trend, an increase of rent has not changed at all.
As the amount of tropical storms has increased decade after decade, I don't see a change in the trends direction. Perhaps in its speed? No idea, I don't need to know how quickly the rate of devestating storms is increasing.
I ditched my stocks of Muenchner Rueck decades ago. (I guess you don't know who/what that company is... but that does not matter)
Draw a logarythmic curve. Find the point where the gradient is a linear 1:1 increase. Unfortunately we are at that point in time/CO2 level.
So for the current situation and next centuries, the effect of CO2 is linear, double the amount and you doubke the effect. What is not linear is the effect on water vapour and CH4, and their effects.
Sentences like 'that effect is logarithmic' are as stupid as applying laws of thermodynamics to mechanics, as in friction or lever laws.
Well, it does not really matter which 'climate gas' has the strongest effect. At least not on the level of yous stupidity and ignorance.
CO2 is the main driver, because it is the root of increased water vapour and CH4.
Or do you think the water vapour came magically into existance?
There wont be any wealth transfer, regardless how the climate problem is tackled.
Or do you really think changing the climate back to where it was/should be or how ever you call it makes any poor person on the planet richer and any rich person on the planet less rich?
If you think that you are an idiot.
Regardless how the planet is run: the rich peope will run it and the poor will stay poor. If you believe otherwise you are an idiot, plain and simple.
Slashdot Mirror
My Shazamme does not work since years. ...
I guess they want me to upgrade to the newest version
But as I'm a software engineer my self, I refuse to follow the 'oh it does not work anymore? did you update?' meme.
I make some screen shots from the music it 'recognized' and then I delete it.
Because itt is cheeaper to let ten other companies compete about such a feature andd buy the surviving one ...
Nice nick name :)
Per Capita is the only thing that matters.
Denying that is idiotic.
I forgot to mention:
I think a tank and modern anti house 'Panzerfausts' would do the trick easily and quickly.
And: you do know that an G3 or G36 or M16 shoots through most walls?
And perhaps you are just bad with words, but being 'point' and 'leading' is not the same thing.
I don't live in the US.
I rather watch from the outside how you kill each other.
I choosed my wording wrong, that is all.
Bottom line we have _no_ gun violence, armed robbery etc. in Europe.
The amount of _no_ may vary.
Next time I chose my words better and point out: in Germany with 80 million inhabitants we have less than 10 armed robberies per year, while gods own country has about 10 per day (with 400 million inhabitants).
Understand the relevance ...
And that is 100% correct. But unless you are a homocidal maniac, you would use dummies instead of real people.
Then we still don't know if the placebo will fail on rwal people or if the real chutes work on real people.
You are just the idiot I adressed with my previous post.
When Gallileo discovered the laws of gravity, he had no placebo gravity, placebo stones, placebo tower etc. to make his experiments with.
If there is a law that describes your experiments and the results you expect, you don't need a placebo law, placebo experiemt etc. placebo group.
The space program, as going to the Moon, only gave us one single thing: Teflon.
There was no other invention or progress.
Being second on Mars, is not losing.
But I doubt an american company will be second, and I'm despite Elon still not sure if an american company will be first.
Your parent thinks that SpaceX/Elon will overstretch their resources and fail on that level,and Boing remains.
It is not a question of technology but money, how you spend it and how you earn it.
However I have confidence in Elon.
As long as the freight trains run on Diesel ....
Bronce is not harder, it is softer, both than iron and steel.
However it is not as brittle as 'bad' iron/steel.
Bottom line it is not a question of rarity but industry. The indusrty slowly shifted to iron. And a workshop that was producing iron, probably could not afford to habe a second branch for iron.
It might also be a matter of style, who wants an old school bronce knive when he can have a nice glittering steel knive?
Both technologies existed at the same time, e.g. spartan spears had an iron/steal tip. But the tip on the back side was bronce, so was their sword and armor and shield.
Being clever or not has not much to do with 'technology level'. ... I would call that 'not clever', most people I know can not skin an animal or cut the meat from the bones, or sail a boat ar build a shelter ... sounds all very unclever to me. ... not sure how clever that is.
Most people I ever met don't know why a circle has 360 degrees
But they all handle a smart phone and can even operate difficult to handle micro waves
Oki, I give me few cents to that thread:
Iron unlike copper etc. is not simply 'melted' out of ore.
Iron only exists in various forms of iron oxices, which need to be 'reduced', you need heat and something that takes the oxide out of the iron ore (and in that process the iron is melted)
For that you use cornon monoxide, aka burning charr coal ember, and obviously you need a hot fire.
So the main diffence to copper smelting is not the heat alone but the amount of carbon monoxide you can produce in the fire,
That is well known since 50 years or more, but nice that a 'new study' confirms it again.
Of course you can "get in" ... hm, 20 cents? To lazy to do the math.
The smallest amount is something like a 0.000000000001 bitcoin. Worth
But why would you want to get in?
To realize your friend in europe get rich when BC rose from 8k to 17k, while you were asleep?
And the you get poor because it drops while you sleep again from 17k to 4k?
Every climate model also moddels water vapour, are you really such an idiot?
I don't know about trillions of money going from the US to China, tell me more about it.
Does the US have such a budget? Who does get the mone?
How many years ago it is that the USA was not only top per capita polluter but also top of the world polluter?
Idiot?
If the data collected by some sensors is wrong, wrong in a deterministic way, you obviously correct it.
Or what would you do? The alrernative is to ditch the data of the malfunctioning sensors.
Dept can not be increased endless.
Regardless if you are a Rep or a Dem.
Depts are payed back with tax money,
If you increase depts indefinitley at some point you would spent all the tax money for reducing depts, or file bankrupt and start over again.
That is a no brainer, for both Reps as Dems ... now pick your stance.
No, the trends are not down.
You are an idiot
You are an double idiot because you don't even grasp your own language.
We have three kinds of trends: flat, increase, decrease. E.g. we could have an increase of rents by about 10% over 3 years as a trend.
Suddenly we have only 7% over a course of 3 years. So the trend decreased (the trend is down) but the direction of the trend, an increase of rent has not changed at all.
As the amount of tropical storms has increased decade after decade, I don't see a change in the trends direction. Perhaps in its speed? No idea, I don't need to know how quickly the rate of devestating storms is increasing.
I ditched my stocks of Muenchner Rueck decades ago. (I guess you don't know who/what that company is ... but that does not matter)
Draw a logarythmic curve.
Find the point where the gradient is a linear 1:1 increase.
Unfortunately we are at that point in time/CO2 level.
So for the current situation and next centuries, the effect of CO2 is linear, double the amount and you doubke the effect.
What is not linear is the effect on water vapour and CH4, and their effects.
Sentences like 'that effect is logarithmic' are as stupid as applying laws of thermodynamics to mechanics, as in friction or lever laws.
Well, it does not really matter which 'climate gas' has the strongest effect.
At least not on the level of yous stupidity and ignorance.
CO2 is the main driver, because it is the root of increased water vapour and CH4.
Or do you think the water vapour came magically into existance?
There wont be any wealth transfer, regardless how the climate problem is tackled.
Or do you really think changing the climate back to where it was/should be or how ever you call it makes any poor person on the planet richer and any rich person on the planet less rich?
If you think that you are an idiot.
Regardless how the planet is run: the rich peope will run it and the poor will stay poor. If you believe otherwise you are an idiot, plain and simple.
Well, we haave no actual data for the year 2100 ... you watched to much 12 monkeys?