Considering that the surface is 1.5 times higher than that of the earth, the universal gravitation equation says it should be about 2.2 times the gravitational force on the surface.
There seem to be a lot of people who like, which I suspect might be the amount of emulsifiers they put in there. Personally, I can't stand the way you can almost feel the sugar crystals in your mouth.
With the exception of SPSS, I've never heard of anything you mentioned, and probably never would.
I'd have expected you at least to know that, up until relatively recently, Windows support for "serious", "grown-up", scientific, and many business applications was the exception. Most really serious applications ran on some Unix flavour.
What you have proven is that many small commercial products run exclusively on Windows. Now you can dare someone to give you small sample of the truly "heavy-duty" workstation applications that run on *nix systems.
Correct. It's also one of the ideas of "quantum" physics. You either have a quantum of energy or you don't, so you can't say there's an "inbetween" for zero and the first level of excitation.
Fist off, crude oil does not produce a particularly large amount of either diesel or gasoline vehicle fuel. In a process called "cracking", heavier molecules are broken down to make motor fuel. The reason a large amount of gasoline is produced is because that's where the demand is, not because it's the best thing to come from crude oil. (I'd guess that making diesel is easier, although there probably isn't much difference between the two) Its just a question of what you want to make from the oil.
So, getting 60 mpg of diesel used the same amount of mostly imported foreign oil as a 30 mpg gasoline car.
Thats one of the most ludicrous conclusions I've ever read. I find it hard to believe this was meant seriously. If you destill Diesel fuel from oil, you've still got the rest of the oil left, it doesn't "use the same amount of oil". You can use the rest to make gasoline if you want.
but a good way to start is to think about all the people who touch the CD from start to finish
Typically zero. (maybe one or two if you count the guy stacking the shelves) This is really a non-issue today, and even ten years ago AOL felt okay about subsidizing my coasters. This is a world where you get a forty foot shipping container to the other side of the world for $2000.
It would be wrong to assume that industries find the optimal point for supply an demand, particularly when you deal with bastards like the RIAA. Look at the historic example of VHS vs. DVD. As soon as studios started selling good movies for $10, sales surged.
The difference being that for a live show, the artists have to be there, but for studio recording they make once, the rake in years and millions of sales.
I'm also looking at Apple somewhat with that statement
How do you sell standard Computer Hardware in a shiny box at twice the normal price and still make a loss?
Does Apple even sell that much software? I know they've got iLife, Final Cut, and keep selling updates at full price, but they're definitely still a hardware-focused company.
People forget that never in the history of Man has the climate not been changing.
Never in the history of society has it been changing so rapidly.
That doesn't mean to say that it hasn't in the history of the earth. I might want to give the mass-extinction parties a miss though.
perhaps you should be comparing the VW Polo to the Honda Insight
Just to nitpick: The Polo has rear seats, the Honda doesn't. And the Bluemotion Polo gets 60 MPG.
I think his point was that Hybrid cars aren't the wondrous blessing in fuel efficiency they're often made out to be. His examples weren't particularly good.
An example for a highly efficient diesel would be the Audi A2 3L, which supposedly gets around 80 MPG, and is more comparable to the Prius (They don't make them any more because it didn't sell well).
Hybrids are definitely a very promising technological development, but it's certainly not the only way to go to increase efficiency.
If you look back at the old interviews from 2004 when the PSP was unveiled, you'll probably find something like "DS is Babies, we're aiming the PSP at mature adults". They done the same mistake again with the PS3, when the managers seemed to think that every PS2 gamer was as rich as themselves, so they outpriced their main costumer base (kids and teens)
Changing clocks is the easiest way to manage it. You start work earlier? What about the train? Do TV stations change their schedule to what their viewers prefer, or do some do, and others don't? What about the other businesses? Can you start making noise earlier? What about the kids? Do they start school earlier or not?
BTW, International business will always have different local times, no matter if you scrap DST or not. Get used to it. Or use GMT for everything.
Are you really stupid, or do you think the world revolves around you?
I would say that people's measurement of time should revolve around people. And yes, if a change is advantageous, it can be done.
We live by the clock cause that's the way modern society is structured, not because we're morons in office hives. If we all lived for the day, and didn't have to-do piles and schedules and meetings and working hours, if we were woken by roosters and sunbeams, then maybe we wouldn't need DST. But if you so much as use an alarm clock, you've already subordinated yourself to the mass of modern society.
Before we had DST, people noticed that a lot of time was wasted. When it was introduced, people became more productive. You can see the positive effect DST has on the job market every year. You're not going to change human habits and laziness, but by simply changing the clock twice a year you have a huge benefit to society.
One word: Biofuel. A simple, cheap and easy way to produce practical fuel with zero net carbon emission. We already have the technology to make 200 MPG cars. We could even dramatically improve the efficiency of existing cars by merely changing a few design specs with practically no extra cost.
Not enough to be important. The conversion efficiency for combustion engines is typically around 33%, and an efficient power plant might have around 36% or so, and more than 50% probably isn't even possible. Add to that the horrendous loss when distributing electric power, and you're probably just about even at best.
The X-prize didn't even come close to recouping the financial investment in the project. It's main benefit was increasing interest and setting an achievable goal, not providing any commercial incentive.
Actually, the original meaning of the term "capitalism" is quite the contrary. It says that the means of production is concentrated to a class of "capitalists", who have wealth and power, but the workers they employ have nothing but their work force, and thus depend on facilities they don't own. So they have very little chance of competing with the capitalists, let alone survive by themselves.
I suppose the problem is that so many people confuse capitalism with "free trade" (although that doesn't necessitate social mobility either.)
Didn't confuse me, but the point is you claimed Chernobyl could not be mentioned under any circumstances ever when talking about nuclear power. In fact, it can.
TuballoyThunder's post is a more detailed description of what I have said. (I was mistaken about the reason the control rods caused the power to spike though, mind. It was because they had graphite leaders)
Compare it to the typical electric-company drivel you're pushing, and you get the idea. Chernobyl relates to penis sizes more than to reactor safety? Surely, even you can do better than that. (Another tell tale sign is how you love to push brain-dead comparisons like "Three Mile Island standards" or decades, instead of explaining yourself.)
And since you seem to believe TuballoyThunder's post, it might interest you that it does contradict you and your "FACTS" (don't we all know that if you spell your own FACTS in capital letters, and the other guy's facts with lower case letters, you get super-convincing)
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that the surface is 1.5 times higher than that of the earth, the universal gravitation equation says it should be about 2.2 times the gravitational force on the surface.
Never heard of it. Link?
Umm, we talking about the same Italy here?
There seem to be a lot of people who like, which I suspect might be the amount of emulsifiers they put in there. Personally, I can't stand the way you can almost feel the sugar crystals in your mouth.
With the exception of SPSS, I've never heard of anything you mentioned, and probably never would.
I'd have expected you at least to know that, up until relatively recently, Windows support for "serious", "grown-up", scientific, and many business applications was the exception. Most really serious applications ran on some Unix flavour.
What you have proven is that many small commercial products run exclusively on Windows. Now you can dare someone to give you small sample of the truly "heavy-duty" workstation applications that run on *nix systems.
Correct.
It's also one of the ideas of "quantum" physics. You either have a quantum of energy or you don't, so you can't say there's an "inbetween" for zero and the first level of excitation.
Look up "cracking" at Wikipedia and you can read all about it.
The reason a large amount of gasoline is produced is because that's where the demand is, not because it's the best thing to come from crude oil. (I'd guess that making diesel is easier, although there probably isn't much difference between the two)
Its just a question of what you want to make from the oil.
Thats one of the most ludicrous conclusions I've ever read. I find it hard to believe this was meant seriously.
If you destill Diesel fuel from oil, you've still got the rest of the oil left, it doesn't "use the same amount of oil". You can use the rest to make gasoline if you want.
Typically zero. (maybe one or two if you count the guy stacking the shelves) This is really a non-issue today, and even ten years ago AOL felt okay about subsidizing my coasters.
This is a world where you get a forty foot shipping container to the other side of the world for $2000.
It would be wrong to assume that industries find the optimal point for supply an demand, particularly when you deal with bastards like the RIAA. Look at the historic example of VHS vs. DVD. As soon as studios started selling good movies for $10, sales surged.
The difference being that for a live show, the artists have to be there, but for studio recording they make once, the rake in years and millions of sales.
They've got Final Fantasy VII Advent Children in the games list? That says it all.
People forget that never in the history of Man has the climate not been changing. Never in the history of society has it been changing so rapidly. That doesn't mean to say that it hasn't in the history of the earth. I might want to give the mass-extinction parties a miss though.
You ever been to Siberia in Summer? It stinks and there's mosquitoes everywhere.
Just to nitpick: The Polo has rear seats, the Honda doesn't. And the Bluemotion Polo gets 60 MPG.
I think his point was that Hybrid cars aren't the wondrous blessing in fuel efficiency they're often made out to be. His examples weren't particularly good.
An example for a highly efficient diesel would be the Audi A2 3L, which supposedly gets around 80 MPG, and is more comparable to the Prius (They don't make them any more because it didn't sell well).
Hybrids are definitely a very promising technological development, but it's certainly not the only way to go to increase efficiency.
If you look back at the old interviews from 2004 when the PSP was unveiled, you'll probably find something like "DS is Babies, we're aiming the PSP at mature adults".
They done the same mistake again with the PS3, when the managers seemed to think that every PS2 gamer was as rich as themselves, so they outpriced their main costumer base (kids and teens)
What about the other businesses? Can you start making noise earlier? What about the kids? Do they start school earlier or not?
BTW, International business will always have different local times, no matter if you scrap DST or not. Get used to it. Or use GMT for everything.
I would say that people's measurement of time should revolve around people. And yes, if a change is advantageous, it can be done.
We live by the clock cause that's the way modern society is structured, not because we're morons in office hives.
If we all lived for the day, and didn't have to-do piles and schedules and meetings and working hours, if we were woken by roosters and sunbeams, then maybe we wouldn't need DST.
But if you so much as use an alarm clock, you've already subordinated yourself to the mass of modern society.
Before we had DST, people noticed that a lot of time was wasted. When it was introduced, people became more productive. You can see the positive effect DST has on the job market every year.
You're not going to change human habits and laziness, but by simply changing the clock twice a year you have a huge benefit to society.
One word: Biofuel. A simple, cheap and easy way to produce practical fuel with zero net carbon emission. We already have the technology to make 200 MPG cars. We could even dramatically improve the efficiency of existing cars by merely changing a few design specs with practically no extra cost.
Not enough to be important. The conversion efficiency for combustion engines is typically around 33%, and an efficient power plant might have around 36% or so, and more than 50% probably isn't even possible.
Add to that the horrendous loss when distributing electric power, and you're probably just about even at best.
The X-prize didn't even come close to recouping the financial investment in the project. It's main benefit was increasing interest and setting an achievable goal, not providing any commercial incentive.
Actually, the original meaning of the term "capitalism" is quite the contrary.
It says that the means of production is concentrated to a class of "capitalists", who have wealth and power, but the workers they employ have nothing but their work force, and thus depend on facilities they don't own. So they have very little chance of competing with the capitalists, let alone survive by themselves.
I suppose the problem is that so many people confuse capitalism with "free trade" (although that doesn't necessitate social mobility either.)
Do they indeed?
Didn't confuse me, but the point is you claimed Chernobyl could not be mentioned under any circumstances ever when talking about nuclear power. In fact, it can.
TuballoyThunder's post is a more detailed description of what I have said. (I was mistaken about the reason the control rods caused the power to spike though, mind. It was because they had graphite leaders)
Compare it to the typical electric-company drivel you're pushing, and you get the idea. Chernobyl relates to penis sizes more than to reactor safety? Surely, even you can do better than that. (Another tell tale sign is how you love to push brain-dead comparisons like "Three Mile Island standards" or decades, instead of explaining yourself.)
And since you seem to believe TuballoyThunder's post, it might interest you that it does contradict you and your "FACTS" (don't we all know that if you spell your own FACTS in capital letters, and the other guy's facts with lower case letters, you get super-convincing)
Actually, no tectonic movements. That's how Olympus got so big.