The comment was about battery lifetime, not total capacity. How did you get these two separate things so terribly confused? Lifetime of a hybrid batter is measured in years and/or hundreds of thousands of miles; a 600-mile lifetime would be a joke.
You are correct, and I caught the AC post (sibling to mine) that pointed out the same thing about energy transfer. I did mention the possibility of drag in my post, however.
This is the same study that was the subject of a discussion here a couple of months ago. Turns out the accounting in that study was based on double-dipping and also failed to depreciate factory costs. I don't remember all the particulars, but a flagrant example of the double-dipping was that they assumed that if a car was resold a number of times before being junked, you had to add the prices of the original sale and each resale. Not only, but they made some unsupported assumptions (aka "pure conjecture") about vehicle lifetimes. In other words, the study is total bunk.
Oh, and hybrid batteries are recycled. I know you didn't say they weren't (only that it's tougher to do so) but someone reading your statement might misunderstand.
I was with you up until the last clause. If you see turbulence with two lanes are merging, most likely it's because of the people who do not wait until the end. For merging lanes, things flow best when everyone merges at the same point. Ideally, it should work like a zipper, selecting cars from each lane in strict alternation. If you have some people merging at the final point, others merging 100 feet before that, and still others merging 200 or 300 or 500 feet ahead, everything gets mucked up, like a zipper that is jammed.
By convention, the preferred single point for merging is the point where the two lanes become a single lane.
The two-body case (i.e., ignore all other objects in the universe) means that either (a) it has too much kinetic energy to be captured in an elliptical orbit; or (b) it doesn't. In case (a), the trajectory will indeed by hyperbolic, and the objects will make only one close pass. In case (b), the objects are *already* gravitationally entangled in an elliptical orbit (albeit highly eccentric).
The problem I see with GP is that I don't think a multibody system would change the outcome of case (a). If the traveling object encounters a system of, say, 5 stars, and has an initially hyperbolic trajectory about their common center of mass, then when it approaches Star #1, that star will have more influence than the other 4, changing the direction but not reducing the total energy of the traveling object. With the same total energy (and assuming no collision), the approaching body would still be able to escape, no matter how many close approaches it makes to the bodies in the system. I don't think capture can occur unless the gases near the stars provide enough braking to reduce this total energy. But that could also happen with a single star.
The reason for the bill is to protect against cases where the false information wastes government resources. This wouldn't apply to the Bush administration unless the propaganda about WMDs led to (for instance) a huge military campaign costing hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of deaths.
Since software is simply a description, as long as the computer (or embedded device) is produced abroad, and the software is installed abroad, you don't have to pay US patent royalties.
What about testing? If the software was tested in the US before it was shipped abroad to be installed, then it had to be installed on a machine in the US (well, not absolutely true; it could have been installed abroad and tested and debugged from a VNC client running domestically, but how likely is that unless somebody is specifically aiming for this particular loophole?). Does installing on a machine in the US for testing purposes constitute infringement?
Of course, I have no idea how MS tested this software, so any conclusions drawn would be speculative.
It's about the distribution. In today's US of A, insurance companies get a huge take of health-care spending. That means a huge portion of what is spent on health care gets diverted away from doctors, nurses, and the like, into the pockets of the insurers. Cutting out the middle man means more money available to the health care providers (the ones actually producing the value), at a lower cost to the health care consumers. A single-payer health care plan accomplishes this, at the same time equalizing the availability of health care. It also increases the size of the risk pool, another effective cost reducer.
If large companies like GM are lobbying for single-payer health care, that would be a good thing, but I see this as unlikely to happen if the insurance industry lobby doesn't sign on (and they would run Harry and Louise advertisements to sway public opinion). More likely, a universal single-payer plan would be enacted within individual states long before it could ever catch on nationally.
The U.S. is clearly just as socialist, they are just less competent socialists.
No, there is a lot of dug-in resistance to changing the distribution. Ask an insurance industry executive what he thinks of universal health care. Competence has nothing to do with it.
I think its a very distinct line. Admissability of evidence is a question of law. Juries aren't qualified to rule on it because they are not trained in the law. They are allowed to decide if the evidence is relevant, if it is credible, and what verdict the evidence supports; in other words, they decide on the facts and apply the instructions given by the judge to reach a verdict.
I don't know if the power of jury nullification trumps those considerations, but jury nullification happens after the fact; that is, after the evidence has already been admitted. This may sound like I'm splitting hairs, but in jury nullification, the jury is not overruling the judge on a question of law. They are saying that following the judge's instructions would lead them to an unjust verdict. Such a jury wouldn't be ruling on admissability of evidence. They would simply be choosing to disregard admitted evidence.
But here we are, two people who acknowledge they aren't qualified, trying to iron out the fine points of a very complicated system.
I don't disagree. I was just following the OP's post to a logical conclusion. That doesn't mean I'm convinced his premise was correct. But I would be surprised if there aren't some strict procedural requirements for the police to follow in such a case.
The visible evidence you suggest is introducing hypotheticals into my hypothetical. What if the murder was commit by poisoning, with no blood? It's already fair game to open the locker, unless the warrant is poorly worded, because they are searching the premises for evidence of another crime. What do they do once they find evidence of a new crime? Getting a second warrant does seem to be the only answer; any fingerprints they took before that point might be used in prosecuting the original crime, but maybe not the murder. And I repeat, a jury isn't involved until someone is brought up on charges, so it's always a judge making the call on evidentiary exclusion (as far as I'm aware).
If what they had a warrant for could have been in the locker it is admissible. If it couldn't have been than no. Police try to make sure that a warrant lists something small so they can look everywhere.
Well, I pointed out that the warrant has to list *what* is to be searched for, not only where. So even though the warrant allows them to look in the locker, I don't see how it allows them to use the evidence there to prosecute the new crime. The post I was responding to was saying (I think) that it could not. I'm not saying that poster was right. I think probably the evidence could be used, somehow. I just wondered what provisions in the legal system allow it to be used.
The stereo would have fallen under the "plain sight" rule. The body in the locker would not. That said, I think your analogy is right, in that they would get a second warrant on discovering the body, meanwhile detaining Joe "for questioning".
I'm curious. How far does this go? I know that a warrant must be specific as to the location to be searched and the type of evidence being searched for, but if "Joe" murdered someone just before the police arrived with their warrant, and stashed the body in a locker with a padlock ("not in plain sight"), could they then arrest "Joe" and use the evidence (the body and "Joe"'s fingerprints on the padlock) against him? The evidence was not covered by the warrant, nor was it in plain sight, yet a heinous crime was committed.
pretty much always the judge/jury's call
Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I think a jury can never decide if evidence is admissable or not. A judge must either disallow the evidence, so that it is never presented to the jury, or allow it, in which case the jury can only decide, as a factual matter, the relevance of the evidence to the case.
IANALBIWAPTOTV (but I've watched actors play them on TV)
I never said IMAP wasn't better. I'm only here asking questions, not making assertions. But what you describe has never happened to me. Tell me, what would be the result?
Meteor showers aren't like eclipses; they're not better on one part of the Earth than another. (Well, they're better on the "non-cloudy" parts, but that's beside the point!)
Well, no, see my other post in this thread. If the radiant is below the horizon, you won't see any meteors (or just a few grazers if it is only slightly below). If you go far enough south, you will reach a point where you can't see the Lyrids at all, because Lyra is a northern constellation. But, if you can see them, then the suggested time is more dependent on when the radiant is above the horizon, than on when the moon is below the horizon. In years in which both are in the same part of the sky during the shower, that is just bad luck because you won't have a very dark sky at the right time anywhere on the planet.
Lyra (where the radiant of this shower is) has a declination of 40 degrees north. Sydney is around 34 degrees south of the equator. So the radiant won't ever be very high above the horizon in Sydney, and you will probably not have a great view. Find out what time Vega transits this time of year (sometime between midnight and dawn, I'm sure); that is when Lyra is highest in the sky (it will be the bright star about 16 degrees above the northern horizon). You might be able to catch some meteors then.
Well, that doesn't quite answer my question. I wanted to know specifically what problems you had with multiple clients on POP. I'm not partial to IMAP or POP; I happen to use POP because that is what my ISP supports. Yet I don't have any trouble accessing it from multiple machines. I'm not a fan of keeping messages on the server, so my model goes like this: One of my clients is configured to always delete mail from the server, and any of the others (a PDA, or a laptop used when away from home) will always leave mail on the server, so that the home client will pick it up next time I use it. All my e-mail then ultimately ends up on the home client where I want it. I can always delete unwanted e-mail while using the away client, so I don't have to see it again at home.
Your link did have a good point about attachments. I was not aware IMAP could do that. When I first used IMAP it really sucked because I had no choice whether to leave mail on the server or delete it, making the above model impossible, but that was in 1996 and it was either a primitive version of IMAP, or it was configured badly by the IT people where I worked. I've since become aware of better IMAP implementations, but everywhere I go POP seems to be the available choice.
I do access a POP3 server from multiple computers, but don't see any problem with it. Can you give an example of the pain you are referring to? Likewise for your attachments comment -- isn't attachment handling a function of the mail client?
I'll read TFA tomorrow-up. Or maybe tomorrow-right or tomorrow-out. With three time dimensions I'm sure I'll get around to it in at least one of them. But this is really going to play havoc with verb tenses.
* A moral non-cognitivist might say "I find murder to be wrong... but I don't find pot-smoking to be wrong"
Well, that's very much a relativist view. But it doesn't quite agree with the wikipedia article on non-cognitivism, as I understood it.
You can't distinguish a relativist form an absolutist based on their judgement of specific cases, because they won't necessarily come to different conclusions in all cases. Two relativists may not always come to the same conclusions, nor for that matter will two absolutists (which should tell us something about the validity of the absolutist viewpoint). The difference comes in when you look at what source they attribute their moral systems to.
The absolutist in your example reasons: "God says murder is wrong, so I will turn in the murderer. After all, our ancestors passed laws against murder because they knew God wanted them to, so we must uphold that law. God never said anything about pot, so I will ignore what my neighbor is doing." This is quite different from the relativist line of thought, which is: "I value human life, so laws that protect human life are good laws under my value system, therefore I will turn in the murderer to help uphold a good law. The law my neighbor is breaking is a bad law under my value system, so as far as I'm concerned, it is better that I look the other way."
But you wouldn't have to look too far to find another absolutist who would turn in both the murderer and the neighbor (on the grounds that "My preacher says growing pot is wrong, and he is God's representative, so that means it is wrong"), and you wouldn't have to look too far to find another relativist who would turn in both the murderer and the neighbor (on the grounds that "I've seen people lose all their motivation from smoking too much weed, and that result is harmful, so I'll support any law that reduces the availability of weed"). If the two absolutists meet, one might tell the other, "Your rule come from Satan. You must be evil. I'm trying to decide whether you should be destroyed". This is what Zbigniew Brzezinski has referred to as "Manichaean paranoia". If the two relativists meet, one might tell the other, "So that's what you think, huh? Interesting, but I can't get on board with that".
I think you're a utilitarian,
Yes, I said as much in my previous post. But an absolutist would surely condemn this view as meaning that morals are a mere convenience. A relativist might agree with my view that morality is derived from personal values (and therefore serves a utilitarian purpose). Perhaps a non-cognitivist would agree only if it is stipulated that personal values are something that don't arise from a cognitive process?
but you haven't made it clear what you mean by relativist here and how it differs from standard positions on morality.
I think relativism *is* a standard position on morality, so I don't know what else I can clarify.
Slashdot Mirror
The comment was about battery lifetime, not total capacity. How did you get these two separate things so terribly confused? Lifetime of a hybrid batter is measured in years and/or hundreds of thousands of miles; a 600-mile lifetime would be a joke.
You are correct, and I caught the AC post (sibling to mine) that pointed out the same thing about energy transfer. I did mention the possibility of drag in my post, however.
Yes, it is.
But it is tech that has been considerably improved within the last 10 years or so.
and battery lifetime isn't relevant to a car that you don't plug in.
Yes it is!!!
Tell me why battery lifetime isn't relevant to a Prius.
Oh, and hybrid batteries are recycled. I know you didn't say they weren't (only that it's tougher to do so) but someone reading your statement might misunderstand.
By convention, the preferred single point for merging is the point where the two lanes become a single lane.
. Thanks AC, you cleared up my confusion (expressed in my post just after yours) about how orbital capture works in a 3-body system.
The problem I see with GP is that I don't think a multibody system would change the outcome of case (a). If the traveling object encounters a system of, say, 5 stars, and has an initially hyperbolic trajectory about their common center of mass, then when it approaches Star #1, that star will have more influence than the other 4, changing the direction but not reducing the total energy of the traveling object. With the same total energy (and assuming no collision), the approaching body would still be able to escape, no matter how many close approaches it makes to the bodies in the system. I don't think capture can occur unless the gases near the stars provide enough braking to reduce this total energy. But that could also happen with a single star.
Oh, wait...
What about testing? If the software was tested in the US before it was shipped abroad to be installed, then it had to be installed on a machine in the US (well, not absolutely true; it could have been installed abroad and tested and debugged from a VNC client running domestically, but how likely is that unless somebody is specifically aiming for this particular loophole?). Does installing on a machine in the US for testing purposes constitute infringement?
Of course, I have no idea how MS tested this software, so any conclusions drawn would be speculative.
If large companies like GM are lobbying for single-payer health care, that would be a good thing, but I see this as unlikely to happen if the insurance industry lobby doesn't sign on (and they would run Harry and Louise advertisements to sway public opinion). More likely, a universal single-payer plan would be enacted within individual states long before it could ever catch on nationally.
No, there is a lot of dug-in resistance to changing the distribution. Ask an insurance industry executive what he thinks of universal health care. Competence has nothing to do with it.
Of course, this will probably get quashed by the more mainstream leadership of the House, but we can always hope.
I don't know if the power of jury nullification trumps those considerations, but jury nullification happens after the fact; that is, after the evidence has already been admitted. This may sound like I'm splitting hairs, but in jury nullification, the jury is not overruling the judge on a question of law. They are saying that following the judge's instructions would lead them to an unjust verdict. Such a jury wouldn't be ruling on admissability of evidence. They would simply be choosing to disregard admitted evidence.
But here we are, two people who acknowledge they aren't qualified, trying to iron out the fine points of a very complicated system.
I don't disagree. I was just following the OP's post to a logical conclusion. That doesn't mean I'm convinced his premise was correct. But I would be surprised if there aren't some strict procedural requirements for the police to follow in such a case.
The visible evidence you suggest is introducing hypotheticals into my hypothetical. What if the murder was commit by poisoning, with no blood? It's already fair game to open the locker, unless the warrant is poorly worded, because they are searching the premises for evidence of another crime. What do they do once they find evidence of a new crime? Getting a second warrant does seem to be the only answer; any fingerprints they took before that point might be used in prosecuting the original crime, but maybe not the murder. And I repeat, a jury isn't involved until someone is brought up on charges, so it's always a judge making the call on evidentiary exclusion (as far as I'm aware).
Well, I pointed out that the warrant has to list *what* is to be searched for, not only where. So even though the warrant allows them to look in the locker, I don't see how it allows them to use the evidence there to prosecute the new crime. The post I was responding to was saying (I think) that it could not. I'm not saying that poster was right. I think probably the evidence could be used, somehow. I just wondered what provisions in the legal system allow it to be used.
The stereo would have fallen under the "plain sight" rule. The body in the locker would not. That said, I think your analogy is right, in that they would get a second warrant on discovering the body, meanwhile detaining Joe "for questioning".
pretty much always the judge/jury's call
Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I think a jury can never decide if evidence is admissable or not. A judge must either disallow the evidence, so that it is never presented to the jury, or allow it, in which case the jury can only decide, as a factual matter, the relevance of the evidence to the case.
IANALBIWAPTOTV (but I've watched actors play them on TV)
I ask you what you didn't like about POP, and you tell me to figure it out myself. What am I, psychic?
I never said IMAP wasn't better. I'm only here asking questions, not making assertions. But what you describe has never happened to me. Tell me, what would be the result?
Well, no, see my other post in this thread. If the radiant is below the horizon, you won't see any meteors (or just a few grazers if it is only slightly below). If you go far enough south, you will reach a point where you can't see the Lyrids at all, because Lyra is a northern constellation. But, if you can see them, then the suggested time is more dependent on when the radiant is above the horizon, than on when the moon is below the horizon. In years in which both are in the same part of the sky during the shower, that is just bad luck because you won't have a very dark sky at the right time anywhere on the planet.
Lyra (where the radiant of this shower is) has a declination of 40 degrees north. Sydney is around 34 degrees south of the equator. So the radiant won't ever be very high above the horizon in Sydney, and you will probably not have a great view. Find out what time Vega transits this time of year (sometime between midnight and dawn, I'm sure); that is when Lyra is highest in the sky (it will be the bright star about 16 degrees above the northern horizon). You might be able to catch some meteors then.
Your link did have a good point about attachments. I was not aware IMAP could do that. When I first used IMAP it really sucked because I had no choice whether to leave mail on the server or delete it, making the above model impossible, but that was in 1996 and it was either a primitive version of IMAP, or it was configured badly by the IT people where I worked. I've since become aware of better IMAP implementations, but everywhere I go POP seems to be the available choice.
I do access a POP3 server from multiple computers, but don't see any problem with it. Can you give an example of the pain you are referring to? Likewise for your attachments comment -- isn't attachment handling a function of the mail client?
I'll read TFA tomorrow-up. Or maybe tomorrow-right or tomorrow-out. With three time dimensions I'm sure I'll get around to it in at least one of them. But this is really going to play havoc with verb tenses.
Well, that's very much a relativist view. But it doesn't quite agree with the wikipedia article on non-cognitivism, as I understood it.
You can't distinguish a relativist form an absolutist based on their judgement of specific cases, because they won't necessarily come to different conclusions in all cases. Two relativists may not always come to the same conclusions, nor for that matter will two absolutists (which should tell us something about the validity of the absolutist viewpoint). The difference comes in when you look at what source they attribute their moral systems to.
The absolutist in your example reasons: "God says murder is wrong, so I will turn in the murderer. After all, our ancestors passed laws against murder because they knew God wanted them to, so we must uphold that law. God never said anything about pot, so I will ignore what my neighbor is doing." This is quite different from the relativist line of thought, which is: "I value human life, so laws that protect human life are good laws under my value system, therefore I will turn in the murderer to help uphold a good law. The law my neighbor is breaking is a bad law under my value system, so as far as I'm concerned, it is better that I look the other way."
But you wouldn't have to look too far to find another absolutist who would turn in both the murderer and the neighbor (on the grounds that "My preacher says growing pot is wrong, and he is God's representative, so that means it is wrong"), and you wouldn't have to look too far to find another relativist who would turn in both the murderer and the neighbor (on the grounds that "I've seen people lose all their motivation from smoking too much weed, and that result is harmful, so I'll support any law that reduces the availability of weed"). If the two absolutists meet, one might tell the other, "Your rule come from Satan. You must be evil. I'm trying to decide whether you should be destroyed". This is what Zbigniew Brzezinski has referred to as "Manichaean paranoia". If the two relativists meet, one might tell the other, "So that's what you think, huh? Interesting, but I can't get on board with that".
I think you're a utilitarian,
Yes, I said as much in my previous post. But an absolutist would surely condemn this view as meaning that morals are a mere convenience. A relativist might agree with my view that morality is derived from personal values (and therefore serves a utilitarian purpose). Perhaps a non-cognitivist would agree only if it is stipulated that personal values are something that don't arise from a cognitive process?
but you haven't made it clear what you mean by relativist here and how it differs from standard positions on morality.
I think relativism *is* a standard position on morality, so I don't know what else I can clarify.