About once or twice a month I make a 450 mile trip, usually stopping only once or twice to pee and grab something from a vending machine -- so that's six or seven hours with a combined total of maybe ten minutes stopped. And I'm already trying to shave every possible minute off that trip, I don't want to throw in a half hour charging stop....
Of course, that's Rhode Island to PA, so wouldn't have anywhere to charge anyway. Which, other than the fact that I can't afford one, is the big thing killing electric cars for me. I can't wait to get one, but if I was looking at one today there's no doubt in my mind that it'd be a Chevy Volt. I LOVE the Roadster and Model S, but they've gotta get better at the long distance trips.
All a matter of time though I'm sure. It'll probably be close to a decade before I'll be even thinking about buying one, so I'm hoping that by then the situation will be improved.
Typically most drivers don't re-inflate the tires themselves. This is usually done when getting the next oil change or taking a trip to the dealership. But yes, it does require those pesky warning lights to grab their attention and remind them.
Really? I reinflate my tires a couple times a year (when the temperature drops -- so usually once around October, once around December, and sometimes once in spring/summer) and there's _always_ a line at the air pump. Hell I've gone at midnight and still had to wait!
US highschools do too; I got the whole Office suite when I was thirteen here in the US -- Word, Excel, Powerpoint, even Access. And the only reason we didn't get it earlier is because everything below highschool was still using Apple IIe computers to teach typing and such. They got rid of those about the time I moved on -- which was not that long ago (graduated highschool in '08 -- so they were on the IIes until around 2000).
I really can't comprehend something like this as a requirement in post-secondary education. Even if it's a trade school. That should be somewhere around 'Computing 001'...quite frankly it should be an embarrassment.
OK, I rescind any earlier comments I've made on here (not sure if I made any actually) now that I've had a chance to come home from work and watch the videos.
He gave you full credit. He didn't use a huge portion of your video. He didn't really even mischaracterize your research (at least initially he does in fact say these are astroids _discovered_ between 1980 and 2010, which seems accurate). So what's your complaint here -- that someone you don't like read and used your research? It seems like the video clips he's using are small enough to be fair use, and he _does give you full attribution for those clips_. I highly doubt anybody is going to watch this and decide you must support everything said in that video -- pretty sure they'll realize this is some crackpot. The legion of Slashdotters who have since commented and downvoted the video will probably help there as well -- which I suspect may have been your real reason for posting this here, which I can't really complain about. Nothing wrong with calling out a lunatic, but he doesn't seem to have done anything illegal and certainly not morally wrong (well, except spewing his FUD)
Most atheists I know have a dog in every fight. Proclaim "There is no God!" is just as annoying as telling everyone to repent. Your anti-believe in God is just as fervent as any foaming at the mouth preachers belief. I'd think that anyone that truly didn't have a religion, if I asked them about the subject they'd just say "Oh I dunno... never really thought about it." Instead you have your own religion, Atheism, and you believe anyone that doesn't agree with your faith is strange and capable of violence. If only they had the same moral compass as you do... perhaps you should try and convert them? Oh wait...
Sorry, but this is what you want to beleive, not reality.
In simple terms, it's wrong.
It is also clear, you've never actually talked to atheists.
It is an utter fabrication you need to tell yourself this in order to compensate for your own self doubt. This is a weakness in your faith, not a aspect of my lack of faith. You seem to be offended when I say, "there is no god" but I'm not offended when you say "there is a god" because I do not fear what you do or do not believe in.
I proclaim, "there is no god", I also proclaim "I dont want you to do anything". What you believe in is your business, I only ask the same courtesy to be returned and for you not to demand I believe in your deity.
Yes, whether or not you believe in god has zero effect on me as I don't believe in god. To use an analogy, your hobby of collecting stamps has not effect on my hobby of not collecting stamps.
The question is, why is your faith so weak that you are so offended that I don't believe in god.
Congratulations. Either you're lucky or I'm not.
I don't believe in God. I refuse to use the term 'athiest' to describe myself. Why? I've never met someone who states they are an athiest who doesn't make a religion out of it. Who doesn't go to or stage anti-religion protests; who doesn't take every possible opportunity to argue with religious preachers; who doesn't openly insult anyone of faith; and whose personal hobby isn't reading the bible so they can find flaws in it to mock on Facebook and to win arguments.
Granted, I probably know a lot of athiests who don't do these things, and I'm not aware of it because these are the people who most vocally state they are athiest. But these "religious athiests" are by far the most vocal majority; they're the athiest equivalent of the fundamentalist christians.
The current "hate" is of the sort "I don't want a ground zero Mosque just like a Japanese wouldn't want Disneyland Hiroshima"
Yes...if that 'Disneyland Hiroshima' was a British amusement park located in Hatsukaichi...
The "ground zero mosque" was neither at ground zero nor a mosque, but "Islamic community center in Manhattan" did not promote the associations that those who created this "controversy" were after, so they made up this "ground zero mosque" crap and were so skillful with their propaganda that most people still believe it.
Of course not. They wouldn't dare say it directly. They say it by using terms like "Ground Zero Mosque" for something that is neither at ground zero nor a mosque...because "Manhattan Islamic community center" doesn't promote the associations they're after.
I believe I outlined the correct solution in my previous message, but I can be more verbose if you prefer. It all comes down to preventing the spammers from getting paid. It has been shown before that the majority of the vendors who pay spammers have their own transactions processed through a very short list of credit card processing agencies. Either shut them down or get them to clean up their acts and the spammers revenue streams dry up rapidly.
Combine that with actually taking action against registrars who knowingly register domains to spammers and you'll change the game rapidly. The spammers still want the classic TLDs for their domains at some point along the way, and will for a while yet.
What would stop the spammers from just switching to different processing agencies or new registrars? Not a rhetorical question -- I'm legitimately curious if there's a way to prevent this. Or if it's difficult enough to set up a payment processor or registrar that playing whac-a-mole for long enough might be enough? I get the feeling it would be harder to stop some rogue Nigerian processors/registrars than it would be to set them up, but I could be wrong there.
There's a reason we're just filtering spam -- that's the cheapest effective option.
Don't fool yourself. Filtering is not effective. It is a continual waste of time, power, and other resources. It only encourages the spammers to get more creative in their strategies to get around filters.
You don't win a war by getting bigger guns. You win a war by convincing your opponent that they are better off not fighting the war. The filters only encourage bigger guns.
...and unfortunately part of the way you convince your opponent that they're better off not fighting the war is by getting bigger guns than they have and possibly beating them (or anyone else who challenges you) into submission. Now, you can do this two ways -- you can build up your own arsenal to the point that they obviously won't stand a chance (ex: the USA's stockpiles of nuclear weapons and such) -- which is analogous to improving filtering in the hopes that eventually spam will become unprofitable. Or you can sabotage/destroy their capacity to defend themselves -- analogous to the approach you propose.
Isn't this kind of like asking the concierge for a dinner suggestion and being referred to a restaurant in the hotel rather than outside? If I ask someone who runs a landscaping company who I should get to mow my lawn... I have a pretty good idea in advance what they are going to say.
While I get your point, it doesn't really hold up unless there's no significant difference in services.
If I stayed at an expensive hotel and asked the concierge for somewhere nearby to get something cheap to eat, and he suggested the hotel restaurant that had nothing below $25...I probably would consider trying a different hotel next time. Yes, a good concierge will probably mention the hotel restaurant and what it has to offer, but they'll also listen to what you're specifically asking for and try to find the best possible match. Sure, they may say 'well, the hotel restaurant does have some quite reasonable options like x, y, and z' but they'll probably also add 'but there's a great place just down the street as well if you're more in the mood for a, b, or c'. They know repeat hotel stays are worth more than a single meal at the restaurant.
Same goes for the landscaping business. Or any business. I can't tell you how many times I've gone into a store saying 'I'm looking for this, do you have it?' and they've said 'No, but I think [competitor] might'. There's no point in saying 'yea, go check aisle 12' if it's not there. There's no point in a landscaper recommending his business if it isn't going to be good for what you need. If he recommends himself and does a crap job, neither you nor your friends will use his services again. If he recommends a competitor and they do pretty well, you may go back to or recommend him when you need something he _can_ do.
So...if Google Maps is better than the competition, they should be able to recommend it on search. If it's just as good as the competition, they should probably still be able to recommend it. If it's worse than the competition and they're ignoring/modifying their search algorithm in order to promote it...then you could say it's a problem. Whether it's anti-trust or just a poor business decision though is a different question.
But the video is posted on Youtube, a US site. So while he may not be able to go after a foreign entity for infringement, he should certainly be able to legally require Youtube to remove the video
Whether I personally would or would not agree to this course of action is a different matter entirely -- and one that I cannot answer right now, as I don't really want to view these at work.
What kind of solutions do you propose? And how many of those would require extra human effort -- with lighted offices (servers don't need lighting); desktop or laptop PCs that probably use a lot more power than those servers; transportation energy (commute to work); construction costs of their workspace (costs more to house and comfort a human than a server rack) and just the cost of paying the employee?
There's a reason we're just filtering spam -- that's the cheapest effective option.
Ah, so renting should be cheaper than buying if you assume that the people who buy the house just...demolish it when they're done with it or something?
Most people sell or transfer their houses at some point. Frequently before they die so they can move somewhere more sensible (ie moving out of a three floor house when you can no longer walk up stairs) or into a nursing home or something. Other times they'll use the value of their property to take out loans with the understanding that they can die with that debt and have their house sold by their family to pay it off. Or they pass it along as inheritance. Point being, the entire point of buying a house rather than renting is, when you're done, _you still have the house too!_
Also, usually people who are renting want to recoup the cost of purchase pretty quickly. Doesn't do you much good to buy a house then rent it out if you won't see profit from it for fifty years.
So no, it doesn't make sense for renting to be cheaper than buying. The reasons to not rent a house are the same as the reasons to not rent a TV or computer or furniture. Sure, some people do for convenience. Most people do because they don't have the money to purchase one outright. They can afford $x/month but not $x*y right now and can't wait y months to make the purchase, so they rent. Or they do it because they only plan to use it for a short time period, but that's a different issue.
Jokes aside, might there be a mix of hydrogen, helium, other gases that would still float a balloon but still be (relatively) non-combustible?
No. The only gases that will provide significant buoyancy in air are H2, He, CH4, NH3, H2O, and Ne. H2 and CH4 are flammable. NH3 is corrosive. H2O will condense. Neon is way to expensive. The only gas left is Helium.
You're answering a different question. He asked if there was some other possible _mix_ of gasses, and you answered if there was any other possible _pure_ gas.
As mentioned in TFS, balloons currently aren't filled with just helium. It's a mix of helium, nitrogen, oxygen, CO2...whatever gasses happen to be in the air. So there's a lot of things in there. The question the GP was asking was if you could find a ratio of, say, hydrogen and nitrogen (or hydrogen, nitrogen, and helium, or some other mix) that would not be particularly flammable (no oxygen for the hydrogen) but still buoyant.
Given that a pure hydrogen balloon won't be extremely flammable to begin with without added oxygen, at the very least you should be able to cut the existing mix with additional hydrogen without too many problems. Of course, you'd want to first remove the oxygen that is currently in the mix (which, as mentioned in other comments, may be problematic for people who like to inhale the stuff.)
What's wrong with the summary? We no longer needed to get those nutrients from meat -- we could survive solely on plant life. Therefore, we could become vegetarians.
the software the university requires for technical majors (engineering, comp sci) is only provided for Windows.
What university was that? Just graduated from Penn State's comp sci program, and we were _never_ required to use Windows software. There were a few classes where we were required to write everything for Unix though. My laptop ran Linux at the time and that never caused an issue. All of the courses that did anything operating system specific would be focused on Unix, and maybe compare to Mac or Windows as a side note.
What school do was that? I ran Linux the entire time through college (Penn State -- comp sci as well) and never needed a Windows tool. We did have a couple classes that required you to do your work on Unix though (Well, you could do the work anywhere, but it would be tested and graded on a Unix system -- and it's kinda hard to test a shell script on Windows...) but of course Linux worked just fine too. Most of the higher level classes used some GNU tools (gdb was pretty much essential for the security class I took.) Sure, your basic intro Java or C++ classes were taught on Windows systems, but the C++ was 100-level basic stuff that was all cross-platform, and the Java...well, it's Java.
There was one class in which I ended up using a full Microsoft stack -- Team Foundation server (I think that's the correct name?), Visual Studio 2008, and XNA...but that was a 'choose your own team and project' thing -- another team was doing an iOS app; a third team was doing a PHP web app; and I'm not sure what the last team ended up with. I just liked the people on that team and got outvoted on the tech. And on that one I just did all my work in the lab. 90% of it was done during class anyway. Could have probably done the whole thing in class except it took us nearly a MONTH to get the damn tools working...and then they kept breaking again. My standard joke at the time was 'Yea, so we're using all Microsoft tools...so of course SOMETHING is always broken...';)
OR, even if they detected the mistake -- they weren't asked if they detected a mistake, they were asked to discuss the opinion written on the page. So they did.
This could also simply be yet another affirmation that people will do what they are told.
Think about it...they don't know the point of the study, they're asked to answer a few questions...so they do. Then they're asked to discuss their answers to these questions...so they do. Perhaps they did notice the answers changed, but they weren't asked 'is this your correct opinion'; they were asked 'defend this opinion'...so they did.
Streaming video with sensitivity to bandwith is something not available in the HTML5 spec at all.
Why not? I may be misunderstanding what you're talking about here, but if not I'm pretty sure I could whip up some Javascript to do that in about thirty minutes. Have the javascript test the bandwidth (probably a better way, but you could just time an image download or something) and modify the source of the video tag accordingly.
...and having an MBA you may have the business knowledge but that doesn't mean shit if you don't have a product to sell...
Point being, it doesn't matter what the degree is, either way you're going to need some extra knowledge. Just because you have a degree that implies you can actually build shit doesn't mean you can't possibly know how to make a business from it. Personally I'd say it puts you in a better place than someone with a business degree, because then you can actually have a product or at least proof of concept ready BEFORE you need to go find funding, plus you can make sure your product isn't a piece of shit -- because if it's shit, it doesn't really matter how good your marketing is.
Slashdot Mirror
...yea, my car was $13k, and I'm usually embarrassed to admit that because to most people I talk to, that's pretty expensive for a car.
About once or twice a month I make a 450 mile trip, usually stopping only once or twice to pee and grab something from a vending machine -- so that's six or seven hours with a combined total of maybe ten minutes stopped. And I'm already trying to shave every possible minute off that trip, I don't want to throw in a half hour charging stop....
Of course, that's Rhode Island to PA, so wouldn't have anywhere to charge anyway. Which, other than the fact that I can't afford one, is the big thing killing electric cars for me. I can't wait to get one, but if I was looking at one today there's no doubt in my mind that it'd be a Chevy Volt. I LOVE the Roadster and Model S, but they've gotta get better at the long distance trips.
All a matter of time though I'm sure. It'll probably be close to a decade before I'll be even thinking about buying one, so I'm hoping that by then the situation will be improved.
Typically most drivers don't re-inflate the tires themselves. This is usually done when getting the next oil change or taking a trip to the dealership. But yes, it does require those pesky warning lights to grab their attention and remind them.
Really? I reinflate my tires a couple times a year (when the temperature drops -- so usually once around October, once around December, and sometimes once in spring/summer) and there's _always_ a line at the air pump. Hell I've gone at midnight and still had to wait!
US highschools do too; I got the whole Office suite when I was thirteen here in the US -- Word, Excel, Powerpoint, even Access. And the only reason we didn't get it earlier is because everything below highschool was still using Apple IIe computers to teach typing and such. They got rid of those about the time I moved on -- which was not that long ago (graduated highschool in '08 -- so they were on the IIes until around 2000).
I really can't comprehend something like this as a requirement in post-secondary education. Even if it's a trade school. That should be somewhere around 'Computing 001'...quite frankly it should be an embarrassment.
OK, I rescind any earlier comments I've made on here (not sure if I made any actually) now that I've had a chance to come home from work and watch the videos.
He gave you full credit. He didn't use a huge portion of your video. He didn't really even mischaracterize your research (at least initially he does in fact say these are astroids _discovered_ between 1980 and 2010, which seems accurate). So what's your complaint here -- that someone you don't like read and used your research? It seems like the video clips he's using are small enough to be fair use, and he _does give you full attribution for those clips_. I highly doubt anybody is going to watch this and decide you must support everything said in that video -- pretty sure they'll realize this is some crackpot. The legion of Slashdotters who have since commented and downvoted the video will probably help there as well -- which I suspect may have been your real reason for posting this here, which I can't really complain about. Nothing wrong with calling out a lunatic, but he doesn't seem to have done anything illegal and certainly not morally wrong (well, except spewing his FUD)
A single example of a US citizen being arrested for the way they look and not having papers?
See page 20 and references 86 through 88:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/JailedWithoutJustice.pdf
Most atheists I know have a dog in every fight. Proclaim "There is no God!" is just as annoying as telling everyone to repent. Your anti-believe in God is just as fervent as any foaming at the mouth preachers belief. I'd think that anyone that truly didn't have a religion, if I asked them about the subject they'd just say "Oh I dunno... never really thought about it." Instead you have your own religion, Atheism, and you believe anyone that doesn't agree with your faith is strange and capable of violence. If only they had the same moral compass as you do... perhaps you should try and convert them? Oh wait...
Sorry, but this is what you want to beleive, not reality.
In simple terms, it's wrong.
It is also clear, you've never actually talked to atheists.
It is an utter fabrication you need to tell yourself this in order to compensate for your own self doubt. This is a weakness in your faith, not a aspect of my lack of faith. You seem to be offended when I say, "there is no god" but I'm not offended when you say "there is a god" because I do not fear what you do or do not believe in.
I proclaim, "there is no god", I also proclaim "I dont want you to do anything". What you believe in is your business, I only ask the same courtesy to be returned and for you not to demand I believe in your deity.
Yes, whether or not you believe in god has zero effect on me as I don't believe in god. To use an analogy, your hobby of collecting stamps has not effect on my hobby of not collecting stamps.
The question is, why is your faith so weak that you are so offended that I don't believe in god.
Congratulations. Either you're lucky or I'm not.
I don't believe in God. I refuse to use the term 'athiest' to describe myself. Why? I've never met someone who states they are an athiest who doesn't make a religion out of it. Who doesn't go to or stage anti-religion protests; who doesn't take every possible opportunity to argue with religious preachers; who doesn't openly insult anyone of faith; and whose personal hobby isn't reading the bible so they can find flaws in it to mock on Facebook and to win arguments.
Granted, I probably know a lot of athiests who don't do these things, and I'm not aware of it because these are the people who most vocally state they are athiest. But these "religious athiests" are by far the most vocal majority; they're the athiest equivalent of the fundamentalist christians.
The current "hate" is of the sort "I don't want a ground zero Mosque just like a Japanese wouldn't want Disneyland Hiroshima"
Yes...if that 'Disneyland Hiroshima' was a British amusement park located in Hatsukaichi...
The "ground zero mosque" was neither at ground zero nor a mosque, but "Islamic community center in Manhattan" did not promote the associations that those who created this "controversy" were after, so they made up this "ground zero mosque" crap and were so skillful with their propaganda that most people still believe it.
Of course not. They wouldn't dare say it directly. They say it by using terms like "Ground Zero Mosque" for something that is neither at ground zero nor a mosque...because "Manhattan Islamic community center" doesn't promote the associations they're after.
What kind of solutions do you propose?
I believe I outlined the correct solution in my previous message, but I can be more verbose if you prefer. It all comes down to preventing the spammers from getting paid. It has been shown before that the majority of the vendors who pay spammers have their own transactions processed through a very short list of credit card processing agencies. Either shut them down or get them to clean up their acts and the spammers revenue streams dry up rapidly.
Combine that with actually taking action against registrars who knowingly register domains to spammers and you'll change the game rapidly. The spammers still want the classic TLDs for their domains at some point along the way, and will for a while yet.
What would stop the spammers from just switching to different processing agencies or new registrars? Not a rhetorical question -- I'm legitimately curious if there's a way to prevent this. Or if it's difficult enough to set up a payment processor or registrar that playing whac-a-mole for long enough might be enough? I get the feeling it would be harder to stop some rogue Nigerian processors/registrars than it would be to set them up, but I could be wrong there.
There's a reason we're just filtering spam -- that's the cheapest effective option.
Don't fool yourself. Filtering is not effective. It is a continual waste of time, power, and other resources. It only encourages the spammers to get more creative in their strategies to get around filters.
You don't win a war by getting bigger guns. You win a war by convincing your opponent that they are better off not fighting the war. The filters only encourage bigger guns.
...and unfortunately part of the way you convince your opponent that they're better off not fighting the war is by getting bigger guns than they have and possibly beating them (or anyone else who challenges you) into submission. Now, you can do this two ways -- you can build up your own arsenal to the point that they obviously won't stand a chance (ex: the USA's stockpiles of nuclear weapons and such) -- which is analogous to improving filtering in the hopes that eventually spam will become unprofitable. Or you can sabotage/destroy their capacity to defend themselves -- analogous to the approach you propose.
Isn't this kind of like asking the concierge for a dinner suggestion and being referred to a restaurant in the hotel rather than outside? ... I have a pretty good idea in advance what they are going to say.
If I ask someone who runs a landscaping company who I should get to mow my lawn
While I get your point, it doesn't really hold up unless there's no significant difference in services.
If I stayed at an expensive hotel and asked the concierge for somewhere nearby to get something cheap to eat, and he suggested the hotel restaurant that had nothing below $25...I probably would consider trying a different hotel next time. Yes, a good concierge will probably mention the hotel restaurant and what it has to offer, but they'll also listen to what you're specifically asking for and try to find the best possible match. Sure, they may say 'well, the hotel restaurant does have some quite reasonable options like x, y, and z' but they'll probably also add 'but there's a great place just down the street as well if you're more in the mood for a, b, or c'. They know repeat hotel stays are worth more than a single meal at the restaurant.
Same goes for the landscaping business. Or any business. I can't tell you how many times I've gone into a store saying 'I'm looking for this, do you have it?' and they've said 'No, but I think [competitor] might'. There's no point in saying 'yea, go check aisle 12' if it's not there. There's no point in a landscaper recommending his business if it isn't going to be good for what you need. If he recommends himself and does a crap job, neither you nor your friends will use his services again. If he recommends a competitor and they do pretty well, you may go back to or recommend him when you need something he _can_ do.
So...if Google Maps is better than the competition, they should be able to recommend it on search. If it's just as good as the competition, they should probably still be able to recommend it. If it's worse than the competition and they're ignoring/modifying their search algorithm in order to promote it...then you could say it's a problem. Whether it's anti-trust or just a poor business decision though is a different question.
But the video is posted on Youtube, a US site. So while he may not be able to go after a foreign entity for infringement, he should certainly be able to legally require Youtube to remove the video
Whether I personally would or would not agree to this course of action is a different matter entirely -- and one that I cannot answer right now, as I don't really want to view these at work.
What kind of solutions do you propose? And how many of those would require extra human effort -- with lighted offices (servers don't need lighting); desktop or laptop PCs that probably use a lot more power than those servers; transportation energy (commute to work); construction costs of their workspace (costs more to house and comfort a human than a server rack) and just the cost of paying the employee?
There's a reason we're just filtering spam -- that's the cheapest effective option.
Ah, so renting should be cheaper than buying if you assume that the people who buy the house just...demolish it when they're done with it or something?
Most people sell or transfer their houses at some point. Frequently before they die so they can move somewhere more sensible (ie moving out of a three floor house when you can no longer walk up stairs) or into a nursing home or something. Other times they'll use the value of their property to take out loans with the understanding that they can die with that debt and have their house sold by their family to pay it off. Or they pass it along as inheritance. Point being, the entire point of buying a house rather than renting is, when you're done, _you still have the house too!_
Also, usually people who are renting want to recoup the cost of purchase pretty quickly. Doesn't do you much good to buy a house then rent it out if you won't see profit from it for fifty years.
So no, it doesn't make sense for renting to be cheaper than buying. The reasons to not rent a house are the same as the reasons to not rent a TV or computer or furniture. Sure, some people do for convenience. Most people do because they don't have the money to purchase one outright. They can afford $x/month but not $x*y right now and can't wait y months to make the purchase, so they rent. Or they do it because they only plan to use it for a short time period, but that's a different issue.
Jokes aside, might there be a mix of hydrogen, helium, other gases that would still float a balloon but still be (relatively) non-combustible?
No. The only gases that will provide significant buoyancy in air are H2, He, CH4, NH3, H2O, and Ne. H2 and CH4 are flammable. NH3 is corrosive. H2O will condense. Neon is way to expensive. The only gas left is Helium.
You're answering a different question. He asked if there was some other possible _mix_ of gasses, and you answered if there was any other possible _pure_ gas.
As mentioned in TFS, balloons currently aren't filled with just helium. It's a mix of helium, nitrogen, oxygen, CO2...whatever gasses happen to be in the air. So there's a lot of things in there. The question the GP was asking was if you could find a ratio of, say, hydrogen and nitrogen (or hydrogen, nitrogen, and helium, or some other mix) that would not be particularly flammable (no oxygen for the hydrogen) but still buoyant.
Given that a pure hydrogen balloon won't be extremely flammable to begin with without added oxygen, at the very least you should be able to cut the existing mix with additional hydrogen without too many problems. Of course, you'd want to first remove the oxygen that is currently in the mix (which, as mentioned in other comments, may be problematic for people who like to inhale the stuff.)
...Access? For a DB class?
Can't quite remember what we used for ours. Something that integrated with Eclipse, because our DB class was in Java...
We had a VPN required to connect to the wifi networks. They distributed a Linux version (although it sucked; so all the Linux users used vpnc instead)
What's wrong with the summary? We no longer needed to get those nutrients from meat -- we could survive solely on plant life. Therefore, we could become vegetarians.
the software the university requires for technical majors (engineering, comp sci) is only provided for Windows.
What university was that? Just graduated from Penn State's comp sci program, and we were _never_ required to use Windows software. There were a few classes where we were required to write everything for Unix though. My laptop ran Linux at the time and that never caused an issue. All of the courses that did anything operating system specific would be focused on Unix, and maybe compare to Mac or Windows as a side note.
What school do was that? I ran Linux the entire time through college (Penn State -- comp sci as well) and never needed a Windows tool. We did have a couple classes that required you to do your work on Unix though (Well, you could do the work anywhere, but it would be tested and graded on a Unix system -- and it's kinda hard to test a shell script on Windows...) but of course Linux worked just fine too. Most of the higher level classes used some GNU tools (gdb was pretty much essential for the security class I took.) Sure, your basic intro Java or C++ classes were taught on Windows systems, but the C++ was 100-level basic stuff that was all cross-platform, and the Java...well, it's Java.
There was one class in which I ended up using a full Microsoft stack -- Team Foundation server (I think that's the correct name?), Visual Studio 2008, and XNA...but that was a 'choose your own team and project' thing -- another team was doing an iOS app; a third team was doing a PHP web app; and I'm not sure what the last team ended up with. I just liked the people on that team and got outvoted on the tech. And on that one I just did all my work in the lab. 90% of it was done during class anyway. Could have probably done the whole thing in class except it took us nearly a MONTH to get the damn tools working...and then they kept breaking again. My standard joke at the time was 'Yea, so we're using all Microsoft tools...so of course SOMETHING is always broken...' ;)
OR, even if they detected the mistake -- they weren't asked if they detected a mistake, they were asked to discuss the opinion written on the page. So they did.
This could also simply be yet another affirmation that people will do what they are told.
Think about it...they don't know the point of the study, they're asked to answer a few questions...so they do. Then they're asked to discuss their answers to these questions...so they do. Perhaps they did notice the answers changed, but they weren't asked 'is this your correct opinion'; they were asked 'defend this opinion'...so they did.
Streaming video with sensitivity to bandwith is something not available in the HTML5 spec at all.
Why not? I may be misunderstanding what you're talking about here, but if not I'm pretty sure I could whip up some Javascript to do that in about thirty minutes. Have the javascript test the bandwidth (probably a better way, but you could just time an image download or something) and modify the source of the video tag accordingly.
Because it serves no purpose that p or span won't already do?
...and having an MBA you may have the business knowledge but that doesn't mean shit if you don't have a product to sell...
Point being, it doesn't matter what the degree is, either way you're going to need some extra knowledge. Just because you have a degree that implies you can actually build shit doesn't mean you can't possibly know how to make a business from it. Personally I'd say it puts you in a better place than someone with a business degree, because then you can actually have a product or at least proof of concept ready BEFORE you need to go find funding, plus you can make sure your product isn't a piece of shit -- because if it's shit, it doesn't really matter how good your marketing is.