Whoa there, Nelly. That's a lot of coffee, way more than most people use. If the parent to your post likes the coffee from his local coffeehouse, then likely he'll want something a little weaker than that.
My suggestion: buy a good, basic coffee maker. Buy a coffee measuring cup that is narrow and deep (to better accurately measure)... or use a kitchen scale to measure. Keep experimenting with water temperature (cold is best, I use ice water), the brew settings on the maker, and the amount of coffee. Buy bulk coffee (grind at the store), 5-6 varieties in small quantities so you can try different varieties under different roasts (I prefer a dark roast).
My preferred method: icewater, slightly more than 1 TBSP fine-ground coffee per 6 oz water, normal brew on my coffeemaker. I rotate coffee varieties every 2-3 weeks, and I never buy more than 3-4 oz coffee at a time (to keep it fresh). I store my coffee in an airtight container in the freezer.
That's a lot of specifics and personal stuff, but the key point is to keep experimenting (take notes when you brew!) to find what works best for you. To sum up the variables you should play with:
1. Coffee variety 2. Roast (light, regular, French, dark) 3. Water temperature 4. Your coffeemaker brew settings.
Assumptions: Use good water. Use fresh coffee (you don't have to grind it yourself, but it helps) Use a nonreactive wire mesh filter, not a paper filter (better for the environment as well as for taste)
That's right, the "The" that the OSU people are so fond of was born of political grandstanding and obnoxious pretentiousness. Which is exactly how it's still looked at to this very day...
It's especially amusing because THE University of Cincinnati (another state school in Ohio) has a better football team this year -- and it seems that out of all the possible things a State University should be proud of, football is the biggest one in Ohio.
Translation/application: if you demonstrate negligence and cause an earthquake, even if everyone's houses are made of chewing gum and paper
FWIW, I'd bet a well-designed chewing-gum-and-paper house is more earthquake resistant than some of the concrete-steel-and-wood houses. At the very least, it'd be cheaper to build, assuming a a very large army of gum chewers, thus resulting in reduced liability for damages.
I'm not familiar with Swiss law either. This may be a lost-in-translation issue. If he knew his actions would cause damage, and continued in those actions anyway, then likely he has committed some crime. The specific word "intent" may not be the right one here... "willful" may be a better translation/interpretation.
No, no way. If you cut in small squares, there's no guarantee that both people will get the same amount of pizza.
You can get a decent approximation, if after cutting the pizza you allow the pizza eaters to take turns selecting pieces, reversing the order of selection each time through (for four people, ABCD-DCBA-ABCD etc).
The only fair way to apportion the pizza is to auction the pieces.
My understanding is that it's less likely to go boom than in previous explosions. This is because the hotspot now sits under a much thicker crust (the rocky mountains). But as I saw one geologist quoted, "I wouldn't bet on it either way".
Maybe there will just be additional pressure built up over more time, with a bigger explosion this time around...
Anyway, to get back to the idea of pressure being vented... this is currently happening to some extent as fumaroles vent, geysers erupt, hills rise and subside. The question is whether the release of energies is outpaced by the buildup of energy in the system... and the answer is probably no.
So how would we institute a controlled release of energy? Drill giant holes and pump air through to bleed off heat? If you tap the volcano, considering the pressures involved, you'd likely just precipitate an explosion.
My suggestion, considering the timescales involved, is to ignore it as anything other than a curiosity. If it blows, put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye. Otherwise, just keep living life.
for comparison, the space shuttle (68,000 kg) going at half the speed of light will have a kinetic energy of 9.455x10^20 joules. Again, for comparison, the total solar flux of the earth is about 1.75x10^17 watts, while total human power consumption is around 16x10^12 watts.
Protip: for easy comparison of VLNs, make sure they are in the same units (although anyone on slashdot should know that 1 Joule is equal to one Watt-Second).
But anyway, your numbers make the answer quite clear. We need a nuclear fusion reactor to propel our spacecraft, and it needs to have about 10,000 times the energy output of the sun. Quite doable. We know of stars with 100,000 times the energy output of the sun, we just need to harness one of those to the shuttle, shutter the front half of it, and we'll get plenty of energy pushing us forward.
Now we only need to figure out a way to get to that 10,000x star.
Sure, but would the increase in sales make up for the reduced margins?
FWIW, price doesn't make a difference to me. I don't own a current-gen console, and I don't plan on buying another console, ever. Why?
For exactly the reasons outlined in TFA. Casual games are good enough for me. I work, I have a family, I have other hobbies. A quick 30-minute session of Nethack or Elona Shooter[1] or Gemcraft or a thousand other casual games is good enough for me. And in the long run, I expect good gaming experiences on mobile computers. So why would I buy a console, that can only be played in my home, costs hundreds of dollars, when I have a game platform (PC or mobile phone) already?
[1] Elona Shooter is crack. Seriously. Props to Noa for his first flash game. Though Elona is a fun somewhat-roguelike. Don't play at bedtime or 30 minutes turns into three hours. It's just as bad as Civilization for "just one more turn" syndrome.
And one more thing in my rambling... all the games that I might want to play are based on multiplayer, with some kind of chat. I hate people-in-general, so that's right out for me.
I find it hilarious that people spend hundreds of dollars on a Wii and then even more money on games and controllers and other shit, only to do stuff they could, you know, do in real life.
What, like gripe in a real-live conversation instead of posting some stupid shit on slashdot?
I love that question every time I see it... "What if you are diagnosed with cancer?" You pay for it or you die. It's not your responsibility to pay for my treatment. You can donate to my treatment if you like, but you can also choose not to. I don't care.
No, that's not usually what happens. Usually what happens is that, all of a sudden, people have a change of heart and look for any source of medical care available that may save their life. Often, this means a state program to provide medical care to the indigent. I've seen it happen a number of times.
I'd have a hard time believing anyone who says they wouldn't take advantage of state aid in order to survive. Most people (likely a VERY large majority), faced with the choice of near-certain death or accepting state aid for medical costs, will choose the second option.
Your counter-argument is a straw man, because it eliminates the most popular choice. You pay for it, or you get the taxpayers to pay for it, or you die. That's the reality of the situation.
The Constitution was written off long ago. Get with the times. We're not in some fantasy world where our legislators only do what's permitted by the Constitution. Accept this, and you'll be much happier (and more able to intelligently discuss modern issues). Corollary to that is the fact that if the Constitution is overlooked for the benefit of others, it should also be overlooked to my benefit.
Then end the ridiculous notion that ERs have to treat people who can't pay.
Some ERs do refuse service to people who can't pay. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who find out they are sick, quit their jobs, and then apply for indigent care through the state. So I pay my inflated insurance premiums, and I pay for their medical costs. I have no problem with all medical costs being via a government system -- I don't begrudge the poor medical care. What I do mind are people just as able to afford medical insurance as myself, but do not -- when the public bears the risk of a catastrophic illness.
As opposed to the BurgerEatingInvasionMonkeys here in the United States.
It's funny that the French army was known for bravery for hundreds of years... and yet a military decision to save the lives of tens of thousands is seen as cowardice. Were the Germans not able to step around the Maginot Line through a neighboring country, we'd likely be celebrating French bravery today.
But whatever... I understand the irony of the Americans (my native country) cowardly waiting to join the war, relatively safe due to an ocean of distance, now calling the French cowards.
No, the funniest thing about this is that you're so proud of your stance, and insecure in its validity, that you need to bring it up and then defend it on slashdot.
Especially since you include a backhanded insult to the set of users of slashdot, of which you yourself are a member.
I'm less than 30 years old. I take care of myself and live a healthy lifestyle. The odds are good that I'm in need of serious medical care it will have resulted from trauma (i.e: automobile accident) and will be covered by a non-health insurance policy.
Famous last words. Would you sing the same tune if you were diagnosed with cancer?
I worked in Manhattan in the publishing industry for almost a decade. I came into contact with literally hundreds of freelancers, most of whom had no healthcare. A few were happy with that; they felt much the same as you. But their opinions changed when people they knew, in the same situation, came down with expensive-to-treat illnesses. I saw it happen to people in otherwise good health in their 20s and 30s, more than once.
So what happened in those cases? When they did get treatment, I and other taxpayers paid for it. But two of the people I worked (at times) with died because they only got treatment once their cancers were late-stage.
The short and sweet of my post is this:
Your stance is all well and good until you actually get really sick. At that point, you end up costing me money because your treatment will be paid for by the state. Now, you may get lucky and never come down with a catastrophic illness. But out of the thousands like you, some will. And I'll end up paying for it because they did not foresee their illness.
You don't like nationalized healthcare? Too bad. I don't like freeloaders, and since there are so many of you, we need to mandate insurance coverage.
Maybe I'm mistaken, and you have a catastrophic coverage plan... but from your posts, it doesn't seem like it.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoa there, Nelly. That's a lot of coffee, way more than most people use. If the parent to your post likes the coffee from his local coffeehouse, then likely he'll want something a little weaker than that.
My suggestion: buy a good, basic coffee maker. Buy a coffee measuring cup that is narrow and deep (to better accurately measure)... or use a kitchen scale to measure. Keep experimenting with water temperature (cold is best, I use ice water), the brew settings on the maker, and the amount of coffee. Buy bulk coffee (grind at the store), 5-6 varieties in small quantities so you can try different varieties under different roasts (I prefer a dark roast).
My preferred method: icewater, slightly more than 1 TBSP fine-ground coffee per 6 oz water, normal brew on my coffeemaker. I rotate coffee varieties every 2-3 weeks, and I never buy more than 3-4 oz coffee at a time (to keep it fresh). I store my coffee in an airtight container in the freezer.
That's a lot of specifics and personal stuff, but the key point is to keep experimenting (take notes when you brew!) to find what works best for you. To sum up the variables you should play with:
1. Coffee variety
2. Roast (light, regular, French, dark)
3. Water temperature
4. Your coffeemaker brew settings.
Assumptions: Use good water.
Use fresh coffee (you don't have to grind it yourself, but it helps)
Use a nonreactive wire mesh filter, not a paper filter (better for the environment as well as for taste)
It's not about US-consumed oil.
It's about US (and British!) companies getting the oil to enrich themselves, their boards, and associated politicos (Cheney, et al).
It's especially amusing because THE University of Cincinnati (another state school in Ohio) has a better football team this year -- and it seems that out of all the possible things a State University should be proud of, football is the biggest one in Ohio.
The author of that article lost all credibility to me when they offered Marmite as a more-palatable alternative to beans in the morning.
I mean, seriously, who would use Marmite as a yummy alternative to anything in the morning?
FWIW, I'd bet a well-designed chewing-gum-and-paper house is more earthquake resistant than some of the concrete-steel-and-wood houses. At the very least, it'd be cheaper to build, assuming a a very large army of gum chewers, thus resulting in reduced liability for damages.
I'm not familiar with Swiss law either. This may be a lost-in-translation issue. If he knew his actions would cause damage, and continued in those actions anyway, then likely he has committed some crime. The specific word "intent" may not be the right one here... "willful" may be a better translation/interpretation.
To be fair, one is very unlikely to be ROTFL in SCUBA gear. Far more likely is to be FITDL (Flailing In The Deep Laughing).
Especially so if you screw up the gas mixture in your tank.
How is that misogyny?
His observation meets my experience perfectly, with two prior girlfriends, my current wife, even my sister.
It even makes sense from a biological standpoint; men, usually larger (and with greater muscle mass) than women, require more calories.
Misogyny exists, and should be fought against... but no need to try and find it where it doesn't exist.
No, no way. If you cut in small squares, there's no guarantee that both people will get the same amount of pizza.
You can get a decent approximation, if after cutting the pizza you allow the pizza eaters to take turns selecting pieces, reversing the order of selection each time through (for four people, ABCD-DCBA-ABCD etc).
The only fair way to apportion the pizza is to auction the pieces.
Well, to each his own. Good thing there's so much variety in games out there...
My understanding is that it's less likely to go boom than in previous explosions. This is because the hotspot now sits under a much thicker crust (the rocky mountains). But as I saw one geologist quoted, "I wouldn't bet on it either way".
Maybe there will just be additional pressure built up over more time, with a bigger explosion this time around...
Anyway, to get back to the idea of pressure being vented... this is currently happening to some extent as fumaroles vent, geysers erupt, hills rise and subside. The question is whether the release of energies is outpaced by the buildup of energy in the system... and the answer is probably no.
So how would we institute a controlled release of energy? Drill giant holes and pump air through to bleed off heat? If you tap the volcano, considering the pressures involved, you'd likely just precipitate an explosion.
My suggestion, considering the timescales involved, is to ignore it as anything other than a curiosity. If it blows, put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye. Otherwise, just keep living life.
What? Ewww... that's just gross.
I was thinking of cannibalism. What the heck were you thinking of?!
Protip: for easy comparison of VLNs, make sure they are in the same units (although anyone on slashdot should know that 1 Joule is equal to one Watt-Second).
But anyway, your numbers make the answer quite clear. We need a nuclear fusion reactor to propel our spacecraft, and it needs to have about 10,000 times the energy output of the sun. Quite doable. We know of stars with 100,000 times the energy output of the sun, we just need to harness one of those to the shuttle, shutter the front half of it, and we'll get plenty of energy pushing us forward.
Now we only need to figure out a way to get to that 10,000x star.
FWIW, the two major inputs to their tastes are diet and sanitary practices. I heard vegans taste better.
(Just trying to think outside the box)
I think you're bringing up an unrelated subject.
My point was that if Wii Soccer != "real" soccer, then slashdot != "real" conversation. This is the natural extension of the OP.
I don't believe it to be the case, but the irony of the OP gave me a good chuckle.
Sure, but would the increase in sales make up for the reduced margins?
FWIW, price doesn't make a difference to me. I don't own a current-gen console, and I don't plan on buying another console, ever. Why?
For exactly the reasons outlined in TFA. Casual games are good enough for me. I work, I have a family, I have other hobbies. A quick 30-minute session of Nethack or Elona Shooter[1] or Gemcraft or a thousand other casual games is good enough for me. And in the long run, I expect good gaming experiences on mobile computers. So why would I buy a console, that can only be played in my home, costs hundreds of dollars, when I have a game platform (PC or mobile phone) already?
[1] Elona Shooter is crack. Seriously. Props to Noa for his first flash game. Though Elona is a fun somewhat-roguelike. Don't play at bedtime or 30 minutes turns into three hours. It's just as bad as Civilization for "just one more turn" syndrome.
And one more thing in my rambling... all the games that I might want to play are based on multiplayer, with some kind of chat. I hate people-in-general, so that's right out for me.
What, like gripe in a real-live conversation instead of posting some stupid shit on slashdot?
Pot meet kettle...
No, that's not usually what happens. Usually what happens is that, all of a sudden, people have a change of heart and look for any source of medical care available that may save their life. Often, this means a state program to provide medical care to the indigent. I've seen it happen a number of times.
I'd have a hard time believing anyone who says they wouldn't take advantage of state aid in order to survive. Most people (likely a VERY large majority), faced with the choice of near-certain death or accepting state aid for medical costs, will choose the second option.
Your counter-argument is a straw man, because it eliminates the most popular choice. You pay for it, or you get the taxpayers to pay for it, or you die. That's the reality of the situation.
The Constitution was written off long ago. Get with the times. We're not in some fantasy world where our legislators only do what's permitted by the Constitution. Accept this, and you'll be much happier (and more able to intelligently discuss modern issues). Corollary to that is the fact that if the Constitution is overlooked for the benefit of others, it should also be overlooked to my benefit.
Some ERs do refuse service to people who can't pay. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who find out they are sick, quit their jobs, and then apply for indigent care through the state. So I pay my inflated insurance premiums, and I pay for their medical costs. I have no problem with all medical costs being via a government system -- I don't begrudge the poor medical care. What I do mind are people just as able to afford medical insurance as myself, but do not -- when the public bears the risk of a catastrophic illness.
Source?
Wikipedia? From the same chart that lists total deaths for these two countries as:
France: 567,600
US: 418,500
Cherry-pick your stats all you want. It won't change my mind that the French get a bad rap they don't deserve for the actions of a few.
Never mind the fact that the US wouldn't exist as we know it if it weren't for the French.
And if you want me to go suck a dick, well... I'm glad to see you have the wit of a twelve-year-old. I hope it serves you well.
As opposed to the BurgerEatingInvasionMonkeys here in the United States.
It's funny that the French army was known for bravery for hundreds of years... and yet a military decision to save the lives of tens of thousands is seen as cowardice. Were the Germans not able to step around the Maginot Line through a neighboring country, we'd likely be celebrating French bravery today.
But whatever... I understand the irony of the Americans (my native country) cowardly waiting to join the war, relatively safe due to an ocean of distance, now calling the French cowards.
No, the funniest thing about this is that you're so proud of your stance, and insecure in its validity, that you need to bring it up and then defend it on slashdot.
Especially since you include a backhanded insult to the set of users of slashdot, of which you yourself are a member.
That's comedy gold.
What kid of juju is that? Sounds dangerous, like you might awake some Guardian of the Deep, or even He Who Lies Dead But Dreaming.
Sure hope your wife's employer has paid up their Catastrophic Accidental Awakening of Ancient Evil insurance policy.
Famous last words. Would you sing the same tune if you were diagnosed with cancer?
I worked in Manhattan in the publishing industry for almost a decade. I came into contact with literally hundreds of freelancers, most of whom had no healthcare. A few were happy with that; they felt much the same as you. But their opinions changed when people they knew, in the same situation, came down with expensive-to-treat illnesses. I saw it happen to people in otherwise good health in their 20s and 30s, more than once.
So what happened in those cases? When they did get treatment, I and other taxpayers paid for it. But two of the people I worked (at times) with died because they only got treatment once their cancers were late-stage.
The short and sweet of my post is this:
Your stance is all well and good until you actually get really sick. At that point, you end up costing me money because your treatment will be paid for by the state. Now, you may get lucky and never come down with a catastrophic illness. But out of the thousands like you, some will. And I'll end up paying for it because they did not foresee their illness.
You don't like nationalized healthcare? Too bad. I don't like freeloaders, and since there are so many of you, we need to mandate insurance coverage.
Maybe I'm mistaken, and you have a catastrophic coverage plan... but from your posts, it doesn't seem like it.
Meh. ATD is historically very fanboyish on Apple.
I don't trust that site for unbiased analysis of anything Apple, though to be fair -- at times his product reviews have been honest.