Gender and culture start early in life, and continue through life. More on this when we talk about how women dominate professions which require high empathy and social skills.
I seem to recall that in the former Soviet Union, the pay of medical doctors was relatively low, and relatively low status. It was dominated by women.
Women tend to dominate professions that have historically had low pay and low social status, largely because high paying and high status jobs have been denied to them. Society tends to undervalue professions requiring high empathy and social skills.
There is also a well established effect that in a hostile environment, people who are part of a minority in that environment have a greater tendency to equate troubles they might be having with feelings of inability. On the other hand, those in the majority are more likely to equate troubles they might be having with feeling that the field is inherently challenging. It is the difference between receiving a low grade and saying "I must be stupid" vs saying "This is a tough course".
"City rules forbid the city from collecting more than the cost of providing the service, officials said."
If this is a problem, change the rule. It is just a rule, it is unlikely to be carved in stone anywhere.
I would not be surprised if it was a rule enacted to follow some misguided legislation prohibiting municipal governments from "unfairly" competing with the private sector. While I can sometimes see how that would be something worth avoiding, I don't usually have a knee-jerk reaction against services being offered by governments in every possible case.
I rode on a ferry once. I was heading to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe. So, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days nickels had pictures of bumblebees on them. 'Give me five bees for a quarter', you'd say. Now, where were we? Oh, yeah...the important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war; the only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...
Isn't there room for more dormitory housing out in Google's suburb?
If employees want fashionable urban housing, try to fit into the existing city.
You mean like purchasing or renting housing on the open market? Isn't that what they are doing?
The problem is not that higher income earners can't find fashionable urban places to live - the problem is that the lower income earners are being displaced out of their fashionable urban housing, and are understandably unwilling to leave town to find cheaper housing. Google could build a bunch of dorms out in the boonies, but I doubt the people needing the housing (ie. those being displaced) want to move out there.
When people are moving into town, the only way to house everyone is to build more units, or force people to leave, or maybe encourage people to live with roommates?
I think the issue is that Google is using city bus stops without permission. In other words appropriating a public asset for private use. And possibly impacting the performance of a city service, have city buses had to wait while the google shuttle cleared the stop?
If Google were picking up its employees somewhere else there would probably be no controversy.
Google is not the only company doing this by the way. Additionally, this week SF announced a pilot project to license and charge companies for the use of specific bus stops on some sort of cost-recovery basis.
"City rules forbid the city from collecting more than the cost of providing the service, officials said."
God forbid the city make a profit on the use of their assets. It seems like they could use this to subsidize the public system a bit and have everyone benefit. Maybe that is too much like socialism or something...
"Why would you call that "a driver that will power all ten LEDs"?"
The voltage and current are of the proper levels to power all of the LEDs, any experienced person would think that because that is what implied. All LEDs test 100% working on individual. But only two or three light up (depends on blue or red. Red tends to light three, blue only two.)
We clearly are having some language issues. Or I am just stupid. I'll grant that is quite possible.
I don't know what this means: "All LEDs test 100% working on individual."
If the "voltage and current are of the proper levels to power all of the LEDs", why would only two or three light up? It seems equivalent to saying "She had enough money to buy ten apples, but she was only able to buy two or three". If all 10 are wired in parallel, then they all get the same voltage (since the ends of each component are at the same electrical potential as they are physically connected by conductors to the same points). If ten identical components are each attached to identical voltages, wouldn't their behaviour be identical? I would expect that either they would all light up, or none of them would light up. Which two would light up?
My understanding of electronics and circuit design is admittedly very rudimentary, but there are some fundamental ideas that I do not think are widely violated in even the most sophisticated designs. Things like "V=IR" and sum(I_in)=sum(I_out).
Why do you say "Trying to run two different voltage devices off the same power line in parallel is not smart. You're going to burn one or the other, or one or the other will underperform, or just not perform at all."? The whole freaking system is running off of one power line - the one coming in from either the wall plug or the system battery.
I would seriously consider going back to whomever taught you your EE and demand a refund. Basic math alone is all that's necessary for this exercise, not even a full understanding of electricity.
That may well be true. It would seem that the problem is clearly on my end since you tell me that what I understood is incorrect, and yet I am still unable to understand why that is so. Let me try to lay out what I think I understand and you can correct my flaws.
I have a 5V supply via the USB, clearly I can't run a CCD from that since you state it takes ~6V, so it looks like this camera will be a CMOS sensor, but we need some sort of resistor to drop the voltage (or limit the current if you would) to that needed by the CMOS sensor, so we string an appropriate resisteance in line with the CMOS sensor and then tie that to ground. Meanwhile, our indicator LED would tie into that same 5V supply, also with a current limiting resistor in series, and again tied to ground. This seems to be the "Camera sensor in parallel with the LED" that flyingfsck was suggesting: when the 5V is supplied, both turn on, when the 5V is cut off, both cut off. The only way I can see this design not working is if somehow the current through the CMOS sensor path plus the current through the LED path are greater than whatever the USB spec maxes out at (500mA ?) - is this why you don't think it is feasible? Is the CMOS current demand so variable that it induces unwanted jitter in the 5V supply that cannot be simply filtered?
Please use simple language, cause clearly I am a bit slow.
That would be true if the ROI was better than the inflation rate, which it isn't for just about anything you can find offered by a bank ( especially after you figure in taxes on your interest). Still better than hiding it in your mattress. For most people, the only way to keep their dollar worth a dollar is to invest in the stock market or a business. However, for no risk at all, they could go and buy something tangible right now, and be better off than waiting until tomorrow to buy it (on average).
"That" is still true even with a lower ROI, since the "that" that my post was about was the idea that slight inflation provides an incentive to invest, and in fact buying something right now is a form of investing. My point is still that currency is a device designed to ease trade and production, thus currencies that have built-in incentives to use them (or at least make them available for others to use) are "better" than ones without such incentives. The system works better if the money moves around.
"In the most simple model of circuit behaviour, electrical components wired in parallel are independent of each other"
Do I need to get to my parallel LED board, with a driver that will power all ten LEDs (in parallel) and show you that only two or three will light up? You don't get much more simple than that, sir.
I really am confused. Maybe we are talking across each other. Are you saying you have a "parallel LED board, with a driver that will power all ten LEDs (in parallel)" and yet when you use it only two or three LEDs light up? Why would you call that "a driver that will power all ten LEDs"? I would call it "a driver that will power two or three LEDs". I really am curious how that fits into what is being discussed.
Would you like to continue to argue with a person that does this daily? I can bring out many more examples of why you don't use an LED in-line with anything sensitive all day long, sir.
I might have mistyped, or you may have misread or something else is causing problems, because again I don't see how that matters. "In-line" would seem to be implying "in-series" whereas I thought we were talking about putting an LED (or LED plus appropriate resistance or other fancy stuff to keep the current to the desired level) in parallel to the CCD, but attached on the correct side of the switch that turns on the CCD. Thus the LED would be a true indicator of when the CCD is getting power.
Now, I have no idea how much current the CCD or the LED would "draw" from the power source, or the effects of that power draw on the voltage that the power source can maintain, and it may well be the case that significant filtering might be required on one or both legs of this parallel arrangement due to one leg effecting the voltage the source can supply, but complaining about using a parallel circuit because the voltage is too high or the resistance is too low in one or the other leg and then telling people to take a real electronics course before speaking nonsense is a bit like yelling at someone who suggests using a lubricant to decrease chaffing because petroleum jelly causes dry skin.
Indicator lights have been in uses for a long time, and the vast majority of them do not require a microprocessor with attendant firmware to be switched on or off with the power.
One of the strengths of a (slightly) inflationary currency is that there is an incentive to invest it in productive activities - ie starting a business. This also creates opportunities for lending the money out for others to use at interest and pooling monies in banks to use for lending, and things like that. Putting your money under the mattress for later use is not so good for the economy. Spending it or getting it into a bank so others can spend it and provide liquidity to the whole system is what is necessary for a robust economy.
In the most simple model of circuit behaviour, electrical components wired in parallel are independent of each other. Adding a low resistance pathway does not effect the higher resistance parallel pathway (provided the voltage of the circuit is not effected). Certainly the camera package designers are competent enough to have the LED put in the circuit along with the appropriate resistance (and impedance and capacitance for that matter) so that it would not unduly impact the CCD sensor.
Being able to use the camera sensor as a sight meter without having to turn on the LED might be impractical though.
While they lost money on the face of it, the economy gained value, likely in excess of the $10B loss.
Debatable. Had GM gone through a proper bankruptcy, the profitable assets could have been put to more productive use in an entity run competently. We've lost the value of that opportunity. However, nobody sees that because the loss is diffused over the entire economy, as compared to a loss that would have been felt acutely by the employees who would lose their jobs in Detroit (despite the jobs that would have been gained in, say, Atlanta). One has a face now; the other doesn't, so we get bailouts instead of housecleaning.
On the other hand, while the economy might have emerged stronger after the short term shock brought about by GM's failure, it is also quite possible that the fallout of such a large scale failure would have been amplified as suppliers and suppliers of suppliers (etc., etc.) failed in turn due to their own inability to weather the transition. The recovery might have been delayed enormously.
In theory I'm with you - let the screwups fail, let the owners lose their investments and move on. In practice, without stronger social safety nets, food, shelter, and medical support for the peons, I'm a bit more sympathetic to the "too big to fail" idea.
Unfortunately it's human nature to be lazy; if people can live in reasonable comfort without having to get up with the alarm clock five days a week, many will choose to do so. A safety net for people who need help is one thing, expecting to be taken care of by the government cradle to grave with no intention to contribute anything in return is something else entirely.
I would tend to agree, but with continued advances in productivity, eventually we are going to get to a point (I would argue that we already have in many "western" countries) where the number of producers needed for enough "stuff" for the entire population is much smaller than the number of people there are in the country. I don't know how we should arrange things so that everyone has at least some opportunity to thrive . If the country makes all this stuff with only a few workers, how SHOULD resources be divided?
Cause I know when someone is arguing out their ass just make a silly point on an internet forum. But hey, if you've got a historically concrete evidence that such a thing is possible, I gladly consider your position, stupid as it is.
If there was "historical concrete evidence that such a thing is possible" I suspect you would have far more "faithful" for any of the "established" religions.
One of the things about religious tolerance is that we typically do not require such evidence in order to classify a belief system as "legitimate", largely because few, if any, of the established religions would be able to meet such requirements. Thus, the "jokes" get to have equal status to the "real" ones, since there is no objective method of separating them.
I've got real problems with that one. If it's so damn important to put something above the Constitution, make an amendment. Otherwise, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Otherwise, you've just defeated the point of having rule-by-law.
The original posting was misleading - it is not "over the constitution". The problem is balancing different parts of the constitution against each other. One part says one thing (no searching without warrants) and the other part says other things (allowed to regulate the national boarders), and those two parts can be in conflict. Fortunately, the constitution describes a system where a constitutional court (the US Supreme Court) makes decisions on what's what. Thus, whatever the supreme court says, is by definition, "constitutional" until the supreme court says otherwise, or until an amendment is passed (and then that amendment is used to inform further court decisions). The "supreme law of the land" states that the US Supreme Court gets to interpret what is the "supreme law of the land".
You don't REALLY need to make those decisions if you trust your healthcare proxy
Yes, you do. If for nothing else so that if you ever reach a point where you are incapable of participating in the discussion that your wishes are unequivocal.
I don't want there to be room for debate of "are you sure he wanted this, maybe he really wanted this" -- I would want it in black and white saying "under these circumstances, stop all medical care".
A problem is that it is not simple to write instructions that are completely clear and cover the vast majority of cases. "Do not resuscitate" instructions could result in ending your life due to a minor issue that could be treated with full recovery if worded too strongly, while prolonging your life in a painful, pointless manner if worded too weakly.
And people do change - many people come to recognize that there is still value in a life that can "only" appreciate the happiness of a sunny day on occasion, so there is the danger of leaving very clear instruction on what you want today, that do not match what you want tomorrow any more.
None of this is easy. It is made easier with clear written instructions and good family communication well before it becomes an issue, but even with that it can be very challenging to decide what is the "right thing".
And 40-50% of ALL food goes rotten or is thrown away (from supermarkets or consumers fridges). Locally grown veggies can adapt to local demand, time to market reduces wastage. WIN WIN
However, most (or a large fraction at least) of that waste happens after it is purchased by the consumer. Local sourcing or non-local sourcing would make no difference.
And it's that last two words that matter most. Local food. As in the amount of oil used to transport the food from a far off land is drastically reduced.
Even if the crops are not the best source of nutrition they are still better for you in the long run. Simply because the cost in carbon and energy is so low.
And to top it off this is only the start. In the future when the tech becomes cheaper and easier to implement the market is easier for people like your self to grow a radish or 6.
But something like 86% or more of the energy/carbon budget for food production is at the point of production. Only 5% in some studies is used for transportation. Hey, every bit helps, but transportation costs (energy and dollars) are not particularly high for most foods.
With that said, these green houses are well situated to minimize heating costs (as compared to hothouses in the UK for example) and I would think that a greenhouse should be able to be more efficient in fertilizer use than regular farm fields. With solar power supplying desalination needs, they could be dramatically lower in CO2 than the alternatives.
Perhaps you live right next to 100 houses all burning wood and your air is polluted as hell but that's still a local problem, for you and your local government and courts to deal with, not something EPA should regulate nationally.
There are some efficiencies in having consumer standards that are more widely applied than at the local level however. It is convenient to have all stoves manufactured be legal to operate in all places in the country, much less convenient to have a gazillion different standards and enforcement systems across the country. We see these difficulties with auto emission standards which are different in different states for example. Having standards that are mutually exclusive can even happen, when meeting the standards in one region forces you to contravene the standards in another.
With that said, I think the data on particulate air pollution is fairly well understood, and requiring new stoves to be cleaner does not seem too unreasonable.
Unfortunately, if Crashplan goes out of business, all of my backups are toast... You can't restore without contacting crashplan.com... This is something I understand and acknowledge but it's important to note for people who may not already know.
If the Crashplan servers get nuked, how does that effect the files stored on local devices (or remote ones at a friend's place)? Are the servers needed to un-encrypting or something? I've never tried to restore from my local devices without having the internet connected, but are you saying it won't work if I pull the ethernet connection? This FAQ questions does not explicitly say an internet connection is needed: http://support.crashplan.com/doku.php/faq/restore#can_i_restore_without_an_internet_connection
Students who never develop these skills and rely on memorization of formula are often unsuccessful in physics courses,
More correctly: The Physics and "orgo" courses teach an incomplete subject since there is no framework for approaching and solving their problems.
In other words: Morons who don't get information theory are allowed to teach.
I don't doubt that many such morons do exist, but it has been my experience that the vast majority of instructors do in fact provide a fairly complete framework for problem-solving within the domain of the material covered in the course.
Many students do in fact develop the desired understanding due in large part to the efforts of the instructor. With that said, there is a lot of poor instruction going on in many fields, there are many instructional methods that serve the majority of students very poorly, and there are a lot of students who do do not take advantage of the excellent resources and opportunities that are available to them. The reasons Johnny can't do "orgo" are not limited to failings of the instructors - there are challenges on both sides of the lecture podium.
Crashplan certainly does the "neighbour backup" quite well, and I think it is smart enough to wait around until both machines are online at the same time to do its magic, if you don't want to have the "destination machine" having to be running 24/7. You can use it to do the initial backup to an external drive and then walk that drive over to the neighbour's place for the subsequent incremental backups. One used to be able to buy a "Crashplan+" license which had a few more features like multiple backup sets for different destinations, but I don't see any way to get that type of license without signing up for a cloud backup subscription. Perhaps if you sign up for a few months and then cancel the cloud backup subscription part, your software might retain the "+" features.
As I understand it, the physics which are potentially of use to a pre-med don't go much beyond "figure out which equation produces the units you want, and rearrange it until it solves the problem for you." That doesn't involve getting an intuitive sense for quantities and thresholds, whereas these skills are forced on you right from the start of reactions in orgo.
You're doing it wrong. The stated methodology (guess, plug, chug) is very ineffective and completely counter to the major reason to require physics courses for non-physics majors (and physics majors for that case.) The (often unrealized) hope is that the student in a physics course will learn to analyze a given situation with an understanding based on overall principles (energy flow, momentum, torque, etc.) decide on the items which are important and which are not and then apply math skills to come up with the desired result. As with "orgo" this can take a lot of challenging work before it becomes a natural process.
Students who never develop these skills and rely on memorization of formula are often unsuccessful in physics courses, even if they put in a whole bunch of work. I suspect that this is true of almost any academic subject. Heck, successful art history and literature majors don't rely on an encyclopedic knowledge of the details of their subject matter as much as an understanding on the relationships and consequences of those relationships. The causes of WW1 or the artistic development of cubism are not just a list of dates and events, but a complex narrative of influences and reactions which is the thing that (good) students are trying to be taught. Not the fact that Franz Ferdinand was shot on June 28th, or that Picasso used a lot of blue for a while.
Why are all y'all equating a functional web site with a desirable policy? The web site can be great, but if it is merely facilitating the destruction of health care in the U.S., that ain't helping us.
Slashdot Mirror
They should have shot him in his seat, just out of sympathy to the rest of us.
Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
from The IT Crowd - a "don't steal movies" public service announcement.
Gender and culture start early in life, and continue through life. More on this when we talk about how women dominate professions which require high empathy and social skills.
I seem to recall that in the former Soviet Union, the pay of medical doctors was relatively low, and relatively low status. It was dominated by women.
Women tend to dominate professions that have historically had low pay and low social status, largely because high paying and high status jobs have been denied to them. Society tends to undervalue professions requiring high empathy and social skills.
There is also a well established effect that in a hostile environment, people who are part of a minority in that environment have a greater tendency to equate troubles they might be having with feelings of inability. On the other hand, those in the majority are more likely to equate troubles they might be having with feeling that the field is inherently challenging. It is the difference between receiving a low grade and saying "I must be stupid" vs saying "This is a tough course".
If this is a problem, change the rule. It is just a rule, it is unlikely to be carved in stone anywhere.
I would not be surprised if it was a rule enacted to follow some misguided legislation prohibiting municipal governments from "unfairly" competing with the private sector. While I can sometimes see how that would be something worth avoiding, I don't usually have a knee-jerk reaction against services being offered by governments in every possible case.
I rode on a ferry once. I was heading to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe. So, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days nickels had pictures of bumblebees on them. 'Give me five bees for a quarter', you'd say. Now, where were we? Oh, yeah...the important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war; the only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...
Exactly!
Isn't there room for more dormitory housing out in Google's suburb?
If employees want fashionable urban housing, try to fit into the existing city.
You mean like purchasing or renting housing on the open market? Isn't that what they are doing?
The problem is not that higher income earners can't find fashionable urban places to live - the problem is that the lower income earners are being displaced out of their fashionable urban housing, and are understandably unwilling to leave town to find cheaper housing. Google could build a bunch of dorms out in the boonies, but I doubt the people needing the housing (ie. those being displaced) want to move out there.
When people are moving into town, the only way to house everyone is to build more units, or force people to leave, or maybe encourage people to live with roommates?
I think the issue is that Google is using city bus stops without permission. In other words appropriating a public asset for private use. And possibly impacting the performance of a city service, have city buses had to wait while the google shuttle cleared the stop?
If Google were picking up its employees somewhere else there would probably be no controversy.
Google is not the only company doing this by the way. Additionally, this week SF announced a pilot project to license and charge companies for the use of specific bus stops on some sort of cost-recovery basis.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/07/us-google-commuterbus-sanfrancisco-idUSBREA0517L20140107
"City rules forbid the city from collecting more than the cost of providing the service, officials said."
God forbid the city make a profit on the use of their assets. It seems like they could use this to subsidize the public system a bit and have everyone benefit. Maybe that is too much like socialism or something...
"Why would you call that "a driver that will power all ten LEDs"?"
The voltage and current are of the proper levels to power all of the LEDs, any experienced person would think that because that is what implied. All LEDs test 100% working on individual. But only two or three light up (depends on blue or red. Red tends to light three, blue only two.)
We clearly are having some language issues. Or I am just stupid. I'll grant that is quite possible.
I don't know what this means: "All LEDs test 100% working on individual."
If the "voltage and current are of the proper levels to power all of the LEDs", why would only two or three light up? It seems equivalent to saying "She had enough money to buy ten apples, but she was only able to buy two or three". If all 10 are wired in parallel, then they all get the same voltage (since the ends of each component are at the same electrical potential as they are physically connected by conductors to the same points). If ten identical components are each attached to identical voltages, wouldn't their behaviour be identical? I would expect that either they would all light up, or none of them would light up. Which two would light up?
My understanding of electronics and circuit design is admittedly very rudimentary, but there are some fundamental ideas that I do not think are widely violated in even the most sophisticated designs. Things like "V=IR" and sum(I_in)=sum(I_out).
Why do you say "Trying to run two different voltage devices off the same power line in parallel is not smart. You're going to burn one or the other, or one or the other will underperform, or just not perform at all."? The whole freaking system is running off of one power line - the one coming in from either the wall plug or the system battery.
I would seriously consider going back to whomever taught you your EE and demand a refund. Basic math alone is all that's necessary for this exercise, not even a full understanding of electricity.
That may well be true. It would seem that the problem is clearly on my end since you tell me that what I understood is incorrect, and yet I am still unable to understand why that is so. Let me try to lay out what I think I understand and you can correct my flaws.
I have a 5V supply via the USB, clearly I can't run a CCD from that since you state it takes ~6V, so it looks like this camera will be a CMOS sensor, but we need some sort of resistor to drop the voltage (or limit the current if you would) to that needed by the CMOS sensor, so we string an appropriate resisteance in line with the CMOS sensor and then tie that to ground. Meanwhile, our indicator LED would tie into that same 5V supply, also with a current limiting resistor in series, and again tied to ground. This seems to be the "Camera sensor in parallel with the LED" that flyingfsck was suggesting: when the 5V is supplied, both turn on, when the 5V is cut off, both cut off. The only way I can see this design not working is if somehow the current through the CMOS sensor path plus the current through the LED path are greater than whatever the USB spec maxes out at (500mA ?) - is this why you don't think it is feasible? Is the CMOS current demand so variable that it induces unwanted jitter in the 5V supply that cannot be simply filtered?
Please use simple language, cause clearly I am a bit slow.
That would be true if the ROI was better than the inflation rate, which it isn't for just about anything you can find offered by a bank ( especially after you figure in taxes on your interest). Still better than hiding it in your mattress. For most people, the only way to keep their dollar worth a dollar is to invest in the stock market or a business. However, for no risk at all, they could go and buy something tangible right now, and be better off than waiting until tomorrow to buy it (on average).
"That" is still true even with a lower ROI, since the "that" that my post was about was the idea that slight inflation provides an incentive to invest, and in fact buying something right now is a form of investing. My point is still that currency is a device designed to ease trade and production, thus currencies that have built-in incentives to use them (or at least make them available for others to use) are "better" than ones without such incentives. The system works better if the money moves around.
"In the most simple model of circuit behaviour, electrical components wired in parallel are independent of each other"
Do I need to get to my parallel LED board, with a driver that will power all ten LEDs (in parallel) and show you that only two or three will light up? You don't get much more simple than that, sir.
I really am confused. Maybe we are talking across each other. Are you saying you have a "parallel LED board, with a driver that will power all ten LEDs (in parallel)" and yet when you use it only two or three LEDs light up? Why would you call that "a driver that will power all ten LEDs"? I would call it "a driver that will power two or three LEDs". I really am curious how that fits into what is being discussed.
Would you like to continue to argue with a person that does this daily? I can bring out many more examples of why you don't use an LED in-line with anything sensitive all day long, sir.
I might have mistyped, or you may have misread or something else is causing problems, because again I don't see how that matters. "In-line" would seem to be implying "in-series" whereas I thought we were talking about putting an LED (or LED plus appropriate resistance or other fancy stuff to keep the current to the desired level) in parallel to the CCD, but attached on the correct side of the switch that turns on the CCD. Thus the LED would be a true indicator of when the CCD is getting power.
Now, I have no idea how much current the CCD or the LED would "draw" from the power source, or the effects of that power draw on the voltage that the power source can maintain, and it may well be the case that significant filtering might be required on one or both legs of this parallel arrangement due to one leg effecting the voltage the source can supply, but complaining about using a parallel circuit because the voltage is too high or the resistance is too low in one or the other leg and then telling people to take a real electronics course before speaking nonsense is a bit like yelling at someone who suggests using a lubricant to decrease chaffing because petroleum jelly causes dry skin.
Indicator lights have been in uses for a long time, and the vast majority of them do not require a microprocessor with attendant firmware to be switched on or off with the power.
One of the strengths of a (slightly) inflationary currency is that there is an incentive to invest it in productive activities - ie starting a business. This also creates opportunities for lending the money out for others to use at interest and pooling monies in banks to use for lending, and things like that. Putting your money under the mattress for later use is not so good for the economy. Spending it or getting it into a bank so others can spend it and provide liquidity to the whole system is what is necessary for a robust economy.
At least, that is part of the picture.
In the most simple model of circuit behaviour, electrical components wired in parallel are independent of each other. Adding a low resistance pathway does not effect the higher resistance parallel pathway (provided the voltage of the circuit is not effected). Certainly the camera package designers are competent enough to have the LED put in the circuit along with the appropriate resistance (and impedance and capacitance for that matter) so that it would not unduly impact the CCD sensor.
Being able to use the camera sensor as a sight meter without having to turn on the LED might be impractical though.
While they lost money on the face of it, the economy gained value, likely in excess of the $10B loss.
Debatable. Had GM gone through a proper bankruptcy, the profitable assets could have been put to more productive use in an entity run competently. We've lost the value of that opportunity. However, nobody sees that because the loss is diffused over the entire economy, as compared to a loss that would have been felt acutely by the employees who would lose their jobs in Detroit (despite the jobs that would have been gained in, say, Atlanta). One has a face now; the other doesn't, so we get bailouts instead of housecleaning.
On the other hand, while the economy might have emerged stronger after the short term shock brought about by GM's failure, it is also quite possible that the fallout of such a large scale failure would have been amplified as suppliers and suppliers of suppliers (etc., etc.) failed in turn due to their own inability to weather the transition. The recovery might have been delayed enormously.
In theory I'm with you - let the screwups fail, let the owners lose their investments and move on. In practice, without stronger social safety nets, food, shelter, and medical support for the peons, I'm a bit more sympathetic to the "too big to fail" idea.
Unfortunately it's human nature to be lazy; if people can live in reasonable comfort without having to get up with the alarm clock five days a week, many will choose to do so. A safety net for people who need help is one thing, expecting to be taken care of by the government cradle to grave with no intention to contribute anything in return is something else entirely.
I would tend to agree, but with continued advances in productivity, eventually we are going to get to a point (I would argue that we already have in many "western" countries) where the number of producers needed for enough "stuff" for the entire population is much smaller than the number of people there are in the country. I don't know how we should arrange things so that everyone has at least some opportunity to thrive . If the country makes all this stuff with only a few workers, how SHOULD resources be divided?
Cause I know when someone is arguing out their ass just make a silly point on an internet forum. But hey, if you've got a historically concrete evidence that such a thing is possible, I gladly consider your position, stupid as it is.
If there was "historical concrete evidence that such a thing is possible" I suspect you would have far more "faithful" for any of the "established" religions.
One of the things about religious tolerance is that we typically do not require such evidence in order to classify a belief system as "legitimate", largely because few, if any, of the established religions would be able to meet such requirements. Thus, the "jokes" get to have equal status to the "real" ones, since there is no objective method of separating them.
over the constitution
I've got real problems with that one. If it's so damn important to put something above the Constitution, make an amendment. Otherwise, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Otherwise, you've just defeated the point of having rule-by-law.
The original posting was misleading - it is not "over the constitution". The problem is balancing different parts of the constitution against each other. One part says one thing (no searching without warrants) and the other part says other things (allowed to regulate the national boarders), and those two parts can be in conflict. Fortunately, the constitution describes a system where a constitutional court (the US Supreme Court) makes decisions on what's what. Thus, whatever the supreme court says, is by definition, "constitutional" until the supreme court says otherwise, or until an amendment is passed (and then that amendment is used to inform further court decisions). The "supreme law of the land" states that the US Supreme Court gets to interpret what is the "supreme law of the land".
Yes, you do. If for nothing else so that if you ever reach a point where you are incapable of participating in the discussion that your wishes are unequivocal.
I don't want there to be room for debate of "are you sure he wanted this, maybe he really wanted this" -- I would want it in black and white saying "under these circumstances, stop all medical care".
A problem is that it is not simple to write instructions that are completely clear and cover the vast majority of cases. "Do not resuscitate" instructions could result in ending your life due to a minor issue that could be treated with full recovery if worded too strongly, while prolonging your life in a painful, pointless manner if worded too weakly.
And people do change - many people come to recognize that there is still value in a life that can "only" appreciate the happiness of a sunny day on occasion, so there is the danger of leaving very clear instruction on what you want today, that do not match what you want tomorrow any more.
None of this is easy. It is made easier with clear written instructions and good family communication well before it becomes an issue, but even with that it can be very challenging to decide what is the "right thing".
And 40-50% of ALL food goes rotten or is thrown away (from supermarkets or consumers fridges). Locally grown veggies can adapt to local demand, time to market reduces wastage. WIN WIN
However, most (or a large fraction at least) of that waste happens after it is purchased by the consumer. Local sourcing or non-local sourcing would make no difference.
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/21-crazy-facts-about-food-waste-in-america.html
http://endhunger.org/food_waste.htm
Local food.
And it's that last two words that matter most. Local food. As in the amount of oil used to transport the food from a far off land is drastically reduced.
Even if the crops are not the best source of nutrition they are still better for you in the long run. Simply because the cost in carbon and energy is so low.
And to top it off this is only the start. In the future when the tech becomes cheaper and easier to implement the market is easier for people like your self to grow a radish or 6.
But something like 86% or more of the energy/carbon budget for food production is at the point of production. Only 5% in some studies is used for transportation. Hey, every bit helps, but transportation costs (energy and dollars) are not particularly high for most foods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_miles#Energy_used_in_production_as_well_as_transport
With that said, these green houses are well situated to minimize heating costs (as compared to hothouses in the UK for example) and I would think that a greenhouse should be able to be more efficient in fertilizer use than regular farm fields. With solar power supplying desalination needs, they could be dramatically lower in CO2 than the alternatives.
Perhaps you live right next to 100 houses all burning wood and your air is polluted as hell but that's still a local problem, for you and your local government and courts to deal with, not something EPA should regulate nationally.
There are some efficiencies in having consumer standards that are more widely applied than at the local level however. It is convenient to have all stoves manufactured be legal to operate in all places in the country, much less convenient to have a gazillion different standards and enforcement systems across the country. We see these difficulties with auto emission standards which are different in different states for example. Having standards that are mutually exclusive can even happen, when meeting the standards in one region forces you to contravene the standards in another.
With that said, I think the data on particulate air pollution is fairly well understood, and requiring new stoves to be cleaner does not seem too unreasonable.
Unfortunately, if Crashplan goes out of business, all of my backups are toast... You can't restore without contacting crashplan.com... This is something I understand and acknowledge but it's important to note for people who may not already know.
If the Crashplan servers get nuked, how does that effect the files stored on local devices (or remote ones at a friend's place)? Are the servers needed to un-encrypting or something? I've never tried to restore from my local devices without having the internet connected, but are you saying it won't work if I pull the ethernet connection? This FAQ questions does not explicitly say an internet connection is needed: http://support.crashplan.com/doku.php/faq/restore#can_i_restore_without_an_internet_connection
Students who never develop these skills and rely on memorization of formula are often unsuccessful in physics courses,
More correctly: The Physics and "orgo" courses teach an incomplete subject since there is no framework for approaching and solving their problems.
In other words: Morons who don't get information theory are allowed to teach.
I don't doubt that many such morons do exist, but it has been my experience that the vast majority of instructors do in fact provide a fairly complete framework for problem-solving within the domain of the material covered in the course.
Many students do in fact develop the desired understanding due in large part to the efforts of the instructor. With that said, there is a lot of poor instruction going on in many fields, there are many instructional methods that serve the majority of students very poorly, and there are a lot of students who do do not take advantage of the excellent resources and opportunities that are available to them. The reasons Johnny can't do "orgo" are not limited to failings of the instructors - there are challenges on both sides of the lecture podium.
Crashplan certainly does the "neighbour backup" quite well, and I think it is smart enough to wait around until both machines are online at the same time to do its magic, if you don't want to have the "destination machine" having to be running 24/7. You can use it to do the initial backup to an external drive and then walk that drive over to the neighbour's place for the subsequent incremental backups. One used to be able to buy a "Crashplan+" license which had a few more features like multiple backup sets for different destinations, but I don't see any way to get that type of license without signing up for a cloud backup subscription. Perhaps if you sign up for a few months and then cancel the cloud backup subscription part, your software might retain the "+" features.
As I understand it, the physics which are potentially of use to a pre-med don't go much beyond "figure out which equation produces the units you want, and rearrange it until it solves the problem for you." That doesn't involve getting an intuitive sense for quantities and thresholds, whereas these skills are forced on you right from the start of reactions in orgo.
You're doing it wrong. The stated methodology (guess, plug, chug) is very ineffective and completely counter to the major reason to require physics courses for non-physics majors (and physics majors for that case.) The (often unrealized) hope is that the student in a physics course will learn to analyze a given situation with an understanding based on overall principles (energy flow, momentum, torque, etc.) decide on the items which are important and which are not and then apply math skills to come up with the desired result. As with "orgo" this can take a lot of challenging work before it becomes a natural process.
Students who never develop these skills and rely on memorization of formula are often unsuccessful in physics courses, even if they put in a whole bunch of work. I suspect that this is true of almost any academic subject. Heck, successful art history and literature majors don't rely on an encyclopedic knowledge of the details of their subject matter as much as an understanding on the relationships and consequences of those relationships. The causes of WW1 or the artistic development of cubism are not just a list of dates and events, but a complex narrative of influences and reactions which is the thing that (good) students are trying to be taught. Not the fact that Franz Ferdinand was shot on June 28th, or that Picasso used a lot of blue for a while.
Why are all y'all equating a functional web site with a desirable policy? The web site can be great, but if it is merely facilitating the destruction of health care in the U.S., that ain't helping us.
Like there was something to destroy....