Japanese have a similar problem, with so much effort required to learn the Japanese language, it diminishes the amount that can be learned using the Japanese language. That is nonsense. Japanese, and for that matter Chinese, you can read close to 10 times as fast than German, and probably more than 5 times as fast than english. There is no special "deciphering" gap in those languages, as it is with this proposed font.
There most likely never was a "memory" effect anyway.
Why should brain power wasted to deceiver a complicated script enhance memory, aka promote "understanding/comprehending and learning" about the topic the complicated script is talking about? This does not sound plausible at all.
Perhaps it urges people to read aloud? That actually _does_ improve learning.
It is a fallacy if the authority has no competence about the matter you are talking about. E.g. applying to the seniority to a (insert religion) reverend when talking about vaccines.
It is not a fallacy if you cite or refer to a medical doctor talking about vaccines. If it would I would need to be a medical doctor myself to even talk about vaccines...
For your interest: an electric generator converts 98% (a 100 year old one) to 99.5% (a modern one) of its kinetic energy into electric power. Then we have a power loss of 1% - 2% in frequency converters, the loss is converted into heat (due to resistance).
A nuclear or coal plant, transforms 42% of the heat into electricity... the other ~60% get blown as steam, smoke etc. into the atmosphere. That amount of heat already is completely insignificant in relation to global warming due to CO2 and other GH gases.
In Germany coal ash is recycled, mostly as road over. Depends what you call "ash" anyway, stuff that used to be blown into the atmosphere 40 years ago is now scrubbed and e.g. gypsum made from it, which is used in construction sites.
And yet the fact is, the per-terawatt-hour death rate from nuclear is lower than for any power source -- lower than wind, lower than rooftop solar, lower than hydroelectric, lower than biomass, lower than natural gas, lower than oil, and lower than coal. First of all: that is not true. Secondly: the metric is completely irrelevant.
You are counting people who died in coal mines? Why don't you count the people who died in iron ore mines? Wow, because then you would need to think about "steel", and how much "steel" is used in a nuke. And from there we have to count down every aspect in the industrial chain and craftsmen chain. E.g. I doubt more than a hand full of idiots (who rejected safety regulations) died in Germany due to installing of roof top solar. But I'm pretty sure a few dozens died in traffic accident, by traveling to the place where they installed roof top solar. So: how many people die per year in the maintaining and fueling and mining for nuklear power plants? Easy answer: you have no idea! So stop reiterating that bollocks claim.
If people were rationally concerned about safety, Rationally concerned about what kind of safety? _My own safety_ is absolutely not touched by any accident in a mine, or on a rooftop or at a wind mill construction site! _My own safety_ is only marginally touched by coal plants as they have effective air scrubbing! _My own safety_ is touched much more by Diesel cars in my town, than by the next best coal plant, just outside of town!!! And to top it _my own safety_ and that includes 50% - 80% of the German population: is massively touched by any old nuklear power plant around us. And that includes the French ones, but particularly the Belgium ones, and also the Swiss ones. You know: Germany has 80 million inhabitants. Here is a nice map with most active nuclear plants, no idea why some are missing (e.g. Neckar Westheim is missing): https://www1.wdr.de/wissen/tec...
If one of them goes boom, especially one of the Belgium ones, e.g. Tiange close to Aachen, then we have to evacuate up to 50million people!!! To where exactly? How exactly? Considering that Poland will have to evacuate, too. That likely parts of France, Netherlands, Switzerland, definitely 90% of Belgium have to be evacuated. To where? Hae? Any clue? No? Me neither!
What do you think what kind of impact that will have on the harvests in Europe? Basically every harvest east of the plant, in a 1000 - 2000 miles range, and most likely most of the cattle, will be lost. Do you have any idea what it means when _the world_ loses 10% - 25% of its harvests in one year?
No please call me irrational again, you stupid *******!
Off the top of my head, heat leaving the Earth (excluding primary reflection) is something like 83% radiative, 17% convective. Early models were more convective, but that was a long time ago.
Obviously it is 100% by radiation. Where exactly would 17% "convect" to? Convect into outer space? By losing atmosphere? Do we need to be concerned about suffocating now, too?
Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority you appeal to is not competent in the topic. E.g. because Mr. Smith, btw. a Doctor in Medicine, thinks climate change is bollocks, then we better all side with Dr. Smith!! He must be right, after all he is a PhD! That was a fallacy.
On the other hand: Dr. Roman Miller, PhD in climatology, PhD in meteorology, Professor at MiT, tells us: "climate change could happen quicker and stronger, than we at the moment expect". Considering that Dr. Miller, is an expert in "climate stuff", I rather side with him, than a random journalist from huffington post.
That is not a fallacy. Albeit Dr. Miller might be wrong, and me believing him, might be wrong, too.
Warming may be regional, but the baseline mechanism is same as with global warming. Reduction in thermal energy vented into space. No, Mr. Obvious. It is not the same mechanism. It has absolutely nothing to do with radiating heat back into space, how the funk would a wind mill affect that?
The stupid idea of the authors is: is the wind stronger then more water is evaporated and the real and perceived temperature _localy_ is lower. This is ofc only true in edge cases. Because already warm air, that is slowed down, stays longer in the local area, and has more time to actually evapour water. So the balancing point where the conditions are right that indeed a warming is measurable is extremely delicate. If there are measurable differences, then it will greatly vary by actual wind speed, air temperature, ground temperature and humidity of the ground/available rivers/lakes etc. E.g. over a forrest, evapouration "could be" strong, as the trees evapour lots of water, but over a late summer wheat field, that is extremely dry, there would be no evapouration at all.
The trend goes to off shore wind farms. For them it is completely irrelevant. A cloud covering the sun for 10 minutes has a magnitude higher effect than a farm of wind mills spinning around.
t's exceedingly obvious that wind power generates heat which is dissipated into the atmosphere. It is actually not "obvious". If you know how the process is supposed to work: enlighten us, the article on technology review does not tell, and he original article to which TR is linking gives an 502 error.
This is rather obvious, as power generation from the wind is generated by literally converting kinetic energy of atmospheric air to kinetic energy using large propeller blades. Which generate friction in the process, both on the blades and as various thermodynamic losses during kinetic > electric conversion. That is bollocks from start to end, e.g. there is no thermodynamic "loss" in converting kinetic energy to electric one, because: that has nothing to do with thermodynamics!!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The amount of friction is so low, it is completely irrelevant anyway. How much "thermal energy" would the wind create -- if it was not slowed down by a turbine -- by just tossing stuff around on the ground and let it "friction"?
Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune don't have a hot core, they don't produce energy and they don't emit visible light. So they contradict your definition. And are obviously not stars. To be a star Jupiter would need to be 10 times as heavy.
Slashdot Mirror
Japanese have a similar problem, with so much effort required to learn the Japanese language, it diminishes the amount that can be learned using the Japanese language.
That is nonsense.
Japanese, and for that matter Chinese, you can read close to 10 times as fast than German, and probably more than 5 times as fast than english.
There is no special "deciphering" gap in those languages, as it is with this proposed font.
There most likely never was a "memory" effect anyway.
Why should brain power wasted to deceiver a complicated script enhance memory, aka promote "understanding/comprehending and learning" about the topic the complicated script is talking about? This does not sound plausible at all.
Perhaps it urges people to read aloud? That actually _does_ improve learning.
No it is not.
It is a fallacy if the authority has no competence about the matter you are talking about.
E.g. applying to the seniority to a (insert religion) reverend when talking about vaccines.
It is not a fallacy if you cite or refer to a medical doctor talking about vaccines. If it would I would need to be a medical doctor myself to even talk about vaccines ...
And who else reported it?
Strangely it never was in the "news" ...
And why would that be relevant?
For your interest: an electric generator converts 98% (a 100 year old one) to 99.5% (a modern one) of its kinetic energy into electric power. Then we have a power loss of 1% - 2% in frequency converters, the loss is converted into heat (due to resistance).
A nuclear or coal plant, transforms 42% of the heat into electricity ... the other ~60% get blown as steam, smoke etc. into the atmosphere. That amount of heat already is completely insignificant in relation to global warming due to CO2 and other GH gases.
In Germany coal ash is recycled, mostly as road over.
Depends what you call "ash" anyway, stuff that used to be blown into the atmosphere 40 years ago is now scrubbed and e.g. gypsum made from it, which is used in construction sites.
And yet the fact is, the per-terawatt-hour death rate from nuclear is lower than for any power source -- lower than wind, lower than rooftop solar, lower than hydroelectric, lower than biomass, lower than natural gas, lower than oil, and lower than coal.
First of all: that is not true.
Secondly: the metric is completely irrelevant.
You are counting people who died in coal mines?
Why don't you count the people who died in iron ore mines? Wow, because then you would need to think about "steel", and how much "steel" is used in a nuke.
And from there we have to count down every aspect in the industrial chain and craftsmen chain.
E.g. I doubt more than a hand full of idiots (who rejected safety regulations) died in Germany due to installing of roof top solar. But I'm pretty sure a few dozens died in traffic accident, by traveling to the place where they installed roof top solar. So: how many people die per year in the maintaining and fueling and mining for nuklear power plants? Easy answer: you have no idea!
So stop reiterating that bollocks claim.
If people were rationally concerned about safety,
Rationally concerned about what kind of safety? _My own safety_ is absolutely not touched by any accident in a mine, or on a rooftop or at a wind mill construction site! _My own safety_ is only marginally touched by coal plants as they have effective air scrubbing! _My own safety_ is touched much more by Diesel cars in my town, than by the next best coal plant, just outside of town!!!
And to top it _my own safety_ and that includes 50% - 80% of the German population: is massively touched by any old nuklear power plant around us. And that includes the French ones, but particularly the Belgium ones, and also the Swiss ones. You know: Germany has 80 million inhabitants. Here is a nice map with most active nuclear plants, no idea why some are missing (e.g. Neckar Westheim is missing): https://www1.wdr.de/wissen/tec...
If one of them goes boom, especially one of the Belgium ones, e.g. Tiange close to Aachen, then we have to evacuate up to 50million people!!! To where exactly? How exactly? Considering that Poland will have to evacuate, too. That likely parts of France, Netherlands, Switzerland, definitely 90% of Belgium have to be evacuated. To where? Hae? Any clue? No? Me neither!
What do you think what kind of impact that will have on the harvests in Europe? Basically every harvest east of the plant, in a 1000 - 2000 miles range, and most likely most of the cattle, will be lost. Do you have any idea what it means when _the world_ loses 10% - 25% of its harvests in one year?
No please call me irrational again, you stupid *******!
Off the top of my head, heat leaving the Earth (excluding primary reflection) is something like 83% radiative, 17% convective. Early models were more convective, but that was a long time ago.
Obviously it is 100% by radiation. Where exactly would 17% "convect" to? Convect into outer space? By losing atmosphere? Do we need to be concerned about suffocating now, too?
Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority you appeal to is not competent in the topic.
E.g. because Mr. Smith, btw. a Doctor in Medicine, thinks climate change is bollocks, then we better all side with Dr. Smith!! He must be right, after all he is a PhD!
That was a fallacy.
On the other hand: Dr. Roman Miller, PhD in climatology, PhD in meteorology, Professor at MiT, tells us: "climate change could happen quicker and stronger, than we at the moment expect". Considering that Dr. Miller, is an expert in "climate stuff", I rather side with him, than a random journalist from huffington post.
That is not a fallacy. Albeit Dr. Miller might be wrong, and me believing him, might be wrong, too.
Warming may be regional, but the baseline mechanism is same as with global warming. Reduction in thermal energy vented into space.
No, Mr. Obvious. It is not the same mechanism. It has absolutely nothing to do with radiating heat back into space, how the funk would a wind mill affect that?
The stupid idea of the authors is: is the wind stronger then more water is evaporated and the real and perceived temperature _localy_ is lower. This is ofc only true in edge cases. Because already warm air, that is slowed down, stays longer in the local area, and has more time to actually evapour water. So the balancing point where the conditions are right that indeed a warming is measurable is extremely delicate. If there are measurable differences, then it will greatly vary by actual wind speed, air temperature, ground temperature and humidity of the ground/available rivers/lakes etc. E.g. over a forrest, evapouration "could be" strong, as the trees evapour lots of water, but over a late summer wheat field, that is extremely dry, there would be no evapouration at all.
The trend goes to off shore wind farms. For them it is completely irrelevant. A cloud covering the sun for 10 minutes has a magnitude higher effect than a farm of wind mills spinning around.
t's exceedingly obvious that wind power generates heat which is dissipated into the atmosphere.
It is actually not "obvious". If you know how the process is supposed to work: enlighten us, the article on technology review does not tell, and he original article to which TR is linking gives an 502 error.
This is rather obvious, as power generation from the wind is generated by literally converting kinetic energy of atmospheric air to kinetic energy using large propeller blades. Which generate friction in the process, both on the blades and as various thermodynamic losses during kinetic > electric conversion.
That is bollocks from start to end, e.g. there is no thermodynamic "loss" in converting kinetic energy to electric one, because: that has nothing to do with thermodynamics!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The amount of friction is so low, it is completely irrelevant anyway. How much "thermal energy" would the wind create -- if it was not slowed down by a turbine -- by just tossing stuff around on the ground and let it "friction"?
China has freedom of religion.
Perhaps you want to check their constitution, it is easy to google.
China is not manipulating its currency, it is bound to the US dollar since decades.
That is not the cost, that is the price you pay.
Again: production cost of such a shot is most certainly a very low cent amount.
It is completely ridiculous that you allow a company to charge so much for a vaccine!
Try asian languages.
Japanese is super easy.
Thai is reasonable easy, too. After you are beyond the hurdle of the script.
Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune don't have a hot core, they don't produce energy and they don't emit visible light.
So they contradict your definition. And are obviously not stars. To be a star Jupiter would need to be 10 times as heavy.
Obviously.
But most likely could have gone to the closest majour city and then switch train and have a rented car at the end.
Obviously there is no train to every 500 inhabitants town all over europe.
Dark Matter does not explain anything about cosmic background radiation.
Nor does QI.
Nor has both anything to do with gravity lensing.
Nevertheless gravity is a force ... no idea what you want to explain with your QM bollocks :D
Because you prevent him infecting his next GF or wife.
The vaccine costs perhaps 5 cents ...
It is your fucked up country that prevents people from getting healthcare.
Hybrids have a battery. ...
That was the point of the parent.
Smart ass
Like to point out that "couple of galaxies" so we can research it a bit together?
That must have been decades ago :D
Paris is now very well connected to all mayour cities in Germany.
Reminds me at the cartoon I lately saw somewhere on the web.
Imagine 50er style 4 colour print.
Mom is cooking and her son asks:
"Mom, what is a Canadian?"
"Oh, Dear, that is a north american with no guns and health insurance"
"Doh!"
You mean Tartars, not Ukrainians. ... because: they are the same.
Ukrainians are by ethnicity indistinguishable from Russians