The ciggies are carbon-neutral (obtained from plants), thus more env friendly than even a G-Wiz.
Cigarettes are not carbon-neutral. There are fossil fuels used for cultivation (fertilization, sowing, tending, fungicides and pesticides, harvesting), curing, production of the finished good, packaging, distribution, etc.
Almost nothing you can buy is carbon-neutral, even if plant-based. If you want it to be carbon-neutral, you need it to be grown, processed, packaged, and transported with *zero* carbon-based fuel input.
The problem is, the government doesn't actually do anything to stimulate the economy-- except when they buy lots of military hardware, and defense spending always the first thing on the block, isn't it?
Federal highway system. Aid to states. Port spending. The list is damn near endless (which is a cause of concern, of course).
And for that matter, military spending is one of the *least* stimulatory things the federal government spends money on.
Do rich people not buy stuff?
In essence, yes. Marginal spending on the top few percent of income is near zero for rich people. If you tax them at 40% instead of 35%, their spending does not change much. Not nearly so much as if you were to use the same funds to give tax breaks to the middle class or poor, where marginal spending on increased income is near 100%.
Are there any good sci-fi movies that have a positive view of he future?
Not any I know of. A positive future doesn't make for intriguing drama (almost all stories are based on conflict).
Most recent things I've seen paint the world / galaxy as some sort of war-torn dystopian nightmare.
I watched the World News last night also.
I think it's great that movies focus on that kind of thing. Many of us sit discontentedly in our safe little sheltered lives, and movies based on conflict like that allow us to explore what it would be like to live in a terrible situation. Who knows, it might even encourage us to act to ensure we, and others, *don't* live in that kind of situation.
Mostly because if they did so they would cease to be a common carrier and be liable for every torrent.
ISPs are not common carriers. ISPs do get the benefits of common carrier status (immunity among other things). In essence, this is what Net Neutrality is all about -- forcing ISPs to have the same responsibility common carriers have.
A real common carrier is not allowed to charge different prices to different customers. They can offer tiered pricing, or discounts, but the same options and discounts must be given to all customers. This is why you can't negotiate special rates from Federal Express -- as a common carrier, all customers must get the same discounts -- so there is a strict volume-based discount offered to everyone.
Net Neutrality, roughly, is asking ISPs to adhere to common carrier restrictions on their offerings.
These persons (almost all of them self-proclaimed Democrats) act as if cops can do no wrong and any attempt to show otherwise is met with "You shithead!" and other insults.
That's odd, because it runs directly counter to my experiences, and to studies done on the sociological predilections of conservatives. Obeisance to authority is a conservative trait, not a liberal one.
I think you've either got a very unusual sample set for your observations, or you're full of shit.
I think the analytical and structural elements are more important. They are the parts, after all, that are universal to all types of writing.
I don't know what you're referring to as analytical and structural elements. You mean like the intro/body/conclusion of boilerplate high school essays?
I can't tell you how many English essays I wrote in high school that were funnel-intro, one paragraph per supporting concept body, and a conclusion that just mirrored the intro and body paragraphs. It didn't help me learn to write effectively, it taught me that I could apply a formula and get a good grade.
One of my history profs in high school taught me to write well. Make a point. Argue it completely, logically, and concisely. Refocus the reader on your point at the end.
I think your grading criteria need a little nudging. We should grade based upon what the intent of the exercise is -- in this case, the ability to convey and support an idea. This includes the elements of style (spelling, punctuation, grammar, etc.).
For example, if you took a written exam and made 15 punctuation errors, you should be ineligible to receive an 'A' (95%). That level of error suggests the writer does not understand how to use punctuation, which is a large barrier to ensuring your readers understand your points.
Spelling is less critical than punctuation -- misspellings do not generally obscure meaning.
I think the scoring should look something like this (on a 100-point scale, for a simple thesis paper ):
Thesis: 15 points maximum; points awarded for clarity in expression (style impacts clarity). Supporting arguments: 60 points maximum; evaluated on logic, factual accuracy, clarity of expression, and significance to the thesis. Summation: 25 points maximum; scoring based on clarity of expression of the thesis and consistency with the supporting arguments.
This grading scale would be for a class teaching composition, of course -- nowhere is mastery of subject knowledge evident in the grading. The reason we write theses and other essays is to communicate ideas and information. The scoring must therefore reflect how well the student communicated; style is sometimes critical to the communication of ideas.
people who don't take the time to spell things correctly are usually deficient in other areas such as grammar and writing clarity
I'm sure there's a class of people that are unable to spell correctly no matter how much time they have and how much of that time they apply to spelling accurately.
For that matter, faced with a written exam with a time limit -- people must decide how they use the limited time they have. Should I be rewarded because I am a champion speller, and can spend more time on the important parts of my composition, while others must devote more of their time to ensuring they spell correctly?
The other thing I'd like to add is that your perception of a correlation between poor spelling and poor grammar and clarity could present a problem -- graders who have that same perception are likely to grade exam-takers with poor spelling worse due to their bias against poor spellers. Maybe poor spelling has a greater impact on grading at high levels than you might suppose. Just food for thought...
Each extra pound of coal has significant and real costs associated with acquiring it.
Which includes, of course, some of the capital cost of the equipment used to receive the coal -- the wear-and-tear on that equipment does contribute to the length of its useful life. I think we're mostly talking about the difference between fixed and variable costs.
You could amortize the fixed costs over the total watts reflected over the lifetime of the mirrors and call that the 'fuel cost', but that's just not how normal accounting is done.
Sure it is, at the analytical level. Accounting feeds into the analytics. When you have a situation where the unit cost approaches zero, then the fixed costs dominate the cost side of the proifitability equation -- so the best way to increase unit profit (only looking at cost, of course) is to produce more with the same fixed costs. This is why the efficiency of the steam turbine, etc, is so important. You get more production out of the same fixed costs on the fuel side.
The thing is, fuel cost as the OP considered it (and as I think you're referring to) is meaningless. What matters is the COGS. That'll include the fuel cost, the cost of receiving the fuel, the cost of converting the fuel to usable energy, the cost of delivering the energy, etc.
The claim that efficiency is meaningless because the fuel is free just doesn't stand up -- the fixed costs are very important.
The fuel is not sunlight. The fuel is sunlight directed at the receiver. The cost of directing the sunlight at the receiver is part of the fuel cost.
In the same manner that the cost of fuel to a coal plant includes the cost of extracting and delivering the fuel to the plant, the cost of fuel for a concentrated solar plant includes the cost of concentrating that solar and delivering it to the receiver.
Fuel is free. Capital and maintenance costs are something that another power plant would have, in addition to fuel costs.
No, fuel is not free. Fuel costs include all the costs associated with acquiring the fuel. Marginal fuel costs are zero. But fuel costs are not zero in this case.
Besides which, we were talking about the potential of using this technology on a small scale, such as a backyard deployment. This makes your point completely extraneous.
Fuel is not free, since there are capital costs involved in setting up the apparatus to receive the fuel, and the apparatus does not have an infinite lifetime.
Without digging too deep, sounds suitable here in So Cal, but maybe the scale is too small to provide any real benefit
I don't think this would be viable on a small scale.
National Geographic had a decent article sometime in the past couple years on different solar energy technologies. Part of that article was an excellent writeup (and photos) of this technology, which is currently in use in Spain.
The basics are:
A column with a salt reservoir at the top A field of mirrors that can focus the reflected solar rays onto the salt A heat-exchange system to drive steam to a steam turbine.
I don't think this would be a good idea on a small scale -- there are other solar thermal energy systems already used on a small scale that would be better (such as passive solar thermal used for night-time heating). Plus, I think there're huge economies of scale at play here -- steam generators are more efficient at larger sizes, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Cigarettes are not carbon-neutral. There are fossil fuels used for cultivation (fertilization, sowing, tending, fungicides and pesticides, harvesting), curing, production of the finished good, packaging, distribution, etc.
Almost nothing you can buy is carbon-neutral, even if plant-based. If you want it to be carbon-neutral, you need it to be grown, processed, packaged, and transported with *zero* carbon-based fuel input.
Horseshit. Utter, complete, indefensible horseshit.
Federal highway system. Aid to states. Port spending. The list is damn near endless (which is a cause of concern, of course).
And for that matter, military spending is one of the *least* stimulatory things the federal government spends money on.
In essence, yes. Marginal spending on the top few percent of income is near zero for rich people. If you tax them at 40% instead of 35%, their spending does not change much. Not nearly so much as if you were to use the same funds to give tax breaks to the middle class or poor, where marginal spending on increased income is near 100%.
Not any I know of. A positive future doesn't make for intriguing drama (almost all stories are based on conflict) .
I watched the World News last night also.
I think it's great that movies focus on that kind of thing. Many of us sit discontentedly in our safe little sheltered lives, and movies based on conflict like that allow us to explore what it would be like to live in a terrible situation. Who knows, it might even encourage us to act to ensure we, and others, *don't* live in that kind of situation.
ISPs are not common carriers. ISPs do get the benefits of common carrier status (immunity among other things). In essence, this is what Net Neutrality is all about -- forcing ISPs to have the same responsibility common carriers have.
A real common carrier is not allowed to charge different prices to different customers. They can offer tiered pricing, or discounts, but the same options and discounts must be given to all customers. This is why you can't negotiate special rates from Federal Express -- as a common carrier, all customers must get the same discounts -- so there is a strict volume-based discount offered to everyone.
Net Neutrality, roughly, is asking ISPs to adhere to common carrier restrictions on their offerings.
That's odd, because it runs directly counter to my experiences, and to studies done on the sociological predilections of conservatives. Obeisance to authority is a conservative trait, not a liberal one.
I think you've either got a very unusual sample set for your observations, or you're full of shit.
For a lot of reasons, not the least of which is why she's wearing shoes while having sex in the first place.
I don't know what you're referring to as analytical and structural elements. You mean like the intro/body/conclusion of boilerplate high school essays?
I can't tell you how many English essays I wrote in high school that were funnel-intro, one paragraph per supporting concept body, and a conclusion that just mirrored the intro and body paragraphs. It didn't help me learn to write effectively, it taught me that I could apply a formula and get a good grade.
One of my history profs in high school taught me to write well. Make a point. Argue it completely, logically, and concisely. Refocus the reader on your point at the end.
I think your grading criteria need a little nudging. We should grade based upon what the intent of the exercise is -- in this case, the ability to convey and support an idea. This includes the elements of style (spelling, punctuation, grammar, etc.).
For example, if you took a written exam and made 15 punctuation errors, you should be ineligible to receive an 'A' (95%). That level of error suggests the writer does not understand how to use punctuation, which is a large barrier to ensuring your readers understand your points.
Spelling is less critical than punctuation -- misspellings do not generally obscure meaning.
I think the scoring should look something like this (on a 100-point scale, for a simple thesis paper ):
Thesis: 15 points maximum; points awarded for clarity in expression (style impacts clarity).
Supporting arguments: 60 points maximum; evaluated on logic, factual accuracy, clarity of expression, and significance to the thesis.
Summation: 25 points maximum; scoring based on clarity of expression of the thesis and consistency with the supporting arguments.
This grading scale would be for a class teaching composition, of course -- nowhere is mastery of subject knowledge evident in the grading. The reason we write theses and other essays is to communicate ideas and information. The scoring must therefore reflect how well the student communicated; style is sometimes critical to the communication of ideas.
I'm sure there's a class of people that are unable to spell correctly no matter how much time they have and how much of that time they apply to spelling accurately.
For that matter, faced with a written exam with a time limit -- people must decide how they use the limited time they have. Should I be rewarded because I am a champion speller, and can spend more time on the important parts of my composition, while others must devote more of their time to ensuring they spell correctly?
The other thing I'd like to add is that your perception of a correlation between poor spelling and poor grammar and clarity could present a problem -- graders who have that same perception are likely to grade exam-takers with poor spelling worse due to their bias against poor spellers. Maybe poor spelling has a greater impact on grading at high levels than you might suppose. Just food for thought...
Well there's your problem. They must have spilled some of the liquid they were pouring over the mainframe.
The RF shielding obviously had the side effect of waterproofing the circuitry case.
No they cannot. Indictment requires a jury and evidence to support the indictment.
Oh, so now you've redefined the Constitution to make Senators and other elected officials just proxy voters for their constituents?
Senators are definitely not sworn to uphold the will of the majority of their constituents, which is a Damn Fine Thing, IMO.
You know, there can also be a class of people who are annoyed by the spam because they think the idea is worthless.
Sometimes an idea isn't widely accepted due to its merits, not due to a lack of publicity.
Thanks. I understand your point very clearly.
Nonsense. It's quite clear that Apple wants to be Famine, since being skinny is fashionable.
The big question is, who would be Pestilence?
Which includes, of course, some of the capital cost of the equipment used to receive the coal -- the wear-and-tear on that equipment does contribute to the length of its useful life. I think we're mostly talking about the difference between fixed and variable costs.
Sure it is, at the analytical level. Accounting feeds into the analytics. When you have a situation where the unit cost approaches zero, then the fixed costs dominate the cost side of the proifitability equation -- so the best way to increase unit profit (only looking at cost, of course) is to produce more with the same fixed costs. This is why the efficiency of the steam turbine, etc, is so important. You get more production out of the same fixed costs on the fuel side.
The thing is, fuel cost as the OP considered it (and as I think you're referring to) is meaningless. What matters is the COGS. That'll include the fuel cost, the cost of receiving the fuel, the cost of converting the fuel to usable energy, the cost of delivering the energy, etc.
The claim that efficiency is meaningless because the fuel is free just doesn't stand up -- the fixed costs are very important.
The fuel is not sunlight. The fuel is sunlight directed at the receiver. The cost of directing the sunlight at the receiver is part of the fuel cost.
In the same manner that the cost of fuel to a coal plant includes the cost of extracting and delivering the fuel to the plant, the cost of fuel for a concentrated solar plant includes the cost of concentrating that solar and delivering it to the receiver.
No, fuel is not free. Fuel costs include all the costs associated with acquiring the fuel. Marginal fuel costs are zero. But fuel costs are not zero in this case.
Besides which, we were talking about the potential of using this technology on a small scale, such as a backyard deployment. This makes your point completely extraneous.
Ouch. My brain hurts. What exactly are you trying to say there?
:)
Or was your intent to inflict pain upon anyone reading that? If so, it worked, you bastard.
Fuel is not free, since there are capital costs involved in setting up the apparatus to receive the fuel, and the apparatus does not have an infinite lifetime.
Yes, lord knows the solar energy people don't want to literally make a pillar of salt.
It would drive the Fundies nuts, that they could then equate solar energy with Sodom and Gomorrah.
I don't think this would be viable on a small scale.
National Geographic had a decent article sometime in the past couple years on different solar energy technologies. Part of that article was an excellent writeup (and photos) of this technology, which is currently in use in Spain.
The basics are:
A column with a salt reservoir at the top
A field of mirrors that can focus the reflected solar rays onto the salt
A heat-exchange system to drive steam to a steam turbine.
I don't think this would be a good idea on a small scale -- there are other solar thermal energy systems already used on a small scale that would be better (such as passive solar thermal used for night-time heating). Plus, I think there're huge economies of scale at play here -- steam generators are more efficient at larger sizes, etc.
That view does not account for external costs, and thus is not the most efficient way to deal with trash.
I usually just tell them my mother's maiden name is cthulhu, and then the bank gives me all their money.
ATF? Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms? I recommend burning two of those three, and for the third -- combustion is part of how they work.