There's no infrastructure to supply the demand in the US now. Yes, there are reserves, but the US would be oil short (which might cripple the economy) for a couple of years if imports stopped. That's _very_ unlikely to happen though.
Losing 80% of the male population and 20% of the female is less devastating than losing 50% of each
The point was that population growth is not a problem right now. There have never been any drafts which would significantly affect population growth. Your percentage examples, and conclusion, may be valid if there was _ever_ a war which hit populations that hard.
Some of parent's post is bullshit, IMO... I think, however, that confidence is key (duh). Also, indecision destroys any illusion of confidence... you've got to know what you want to do.
Her : What do you want to do tonight?
You : Quite fancy going out to see a movie.
Her : Oh, I thought we could watch TV, and get a takeaway.
You : Yeah, that sounds good.
Now, this seems like an innocent enough conversation... however, you're missing something. She didn't necessarily want to watch TV and get a takeaway... no, that would be too easy. She might have wanted to go see the movie with you. You've accepted what she asked for, without any of your opinion being accounted for, and ignored the underlying messages. You'll be pissed off by not being able to do what you wanted to do, and she'll be pissed off because you'll be in a little bit of a sulk, and she wasn't thinking when she said she wanted to stay in, and wanted to go out anyway.
Her : What do you want to do tonight?
You : Quite fancy going out to see a movie.
Her : Oh, I thought we could watch TV, and get a takeaway.
You : But the new Twilight is out today!
You've made another fatal error. She knows you're either pandering to her interests, and not expressing your opinion, or actually like Twilight, and thus are not boyfriend material.
Her : What do you want to do tonight?
You : Quite fancy going out to see a movie.
Her : Oh, I thought we could watch TV, and get a takeaway.
You : Yeah, and then immediately after I've watched your (crappy television bilge that you insist on watching) interesting reality television, I'll hit a WoW raid with my friends.
Another fatal error. Never, ever, let her think that you're doing something for her benefit, which entitles you to time you'd rather spend elswhere later. Honestly, this is a common mistake.
Her : What do you want to do tonight?
You : Quite fancy going out to see a movie.
Her : Oh, I thought we could watch TV, and get a takeaway.
You : Come on hun, get up off that fat ass of yours, you lazy bitch. I mean, seriously... is your life's ambition to watch Jerry Springer 24/7?
Now, we're getting closer to decisive... however, we've gone a little overboard. When being decisive, try not to insult your partner... it may backfire.
Her : What do you want to do tonight?
You : Quite fancy going out to see a movie.
Her : Oh, I thought we could watch TV, and get a takeaway.
You : I really want to see this movie... I've booked a place at (new fancy restaurant) afterwards too.
Troops go to war because the President/Congress/The People tell them to.
No. Troops go to war because they decide to... they are not automatons. Every single one of those troops has gone to war decided that going to war is the best option for them. You should not surrender your integrity when you enter the service.
That being said, I think _most_ of them made the correct choice, since they have been put in difficult positions. Some may feel the war is just, some may not. For the latter, the negatives against following orders have not been large enough. More responsibility lies with those who decided upon the war, but some still rests with those who carried it out. "I was just following orders" is not an excuse.
Seriously though, you can survive in very hot places without AC, you just can't _do_ all that much. At over about 40 degrees in the shade, your body expends most of its energy trying to get cool. AC just allows you to function fully all day long, it's not technically necessary (at least if not fighting a war). It hit 50 degrees in the shade a couple of times when I was there.
That being said, I (obviously) wasn't living in temporary structures over there, like tents.... most of my homes had AC (most of the time), and all proper buildings retained a little of the night cool to lower the high mid-day temperatures. The thicker the walls, the better they did it - some places with massive walls, without AC, remained at absolutely fine temperatures throughout the day.
1 : We haven't come close to using up the world's oil reserves yet. There's enough there for at least a couple of hundred years more at current usage (though some will cost more to extract).
2 : Solar power cells use rare earth metals, which we are much closer to using up than oil. Some extraction methods for these also leave a lot to be desired.
Seriously... it's not insane, it's just not quite as black and white as you pretend it is.
These numbers may be approximate for goods, however they are wildly innacurate for passenger journeys. Some little used rail systems actually average worse, in terms of co2 emissions per passenger, than single people in their cars. It all comes down to how many people are using the service - Full planes are better than single people in their cars too.
Why nuclear power? It is carbon neutral, inexpensive, has a lot of energy generating capability in a small area, and the technology is very mature.
Well, one out of three isn't bad.
It's not carbon neutral. There is no such thing as carbon neutral energy production. There are metric shitloads of concrete (for one example) used in just about all so called carbon neutral power sources. When calculating carbon production, you must take into account the co2 released in its production, and decomission.
It's not inexpensive compared to oil, gas, or coal, otherwise everyone would be on it already. It's only inexpensive compared to other "green" technologies.
It does however, as you say, have a lot of energy capability in a small area... also, it has the advantage over some methods of being able to pick up and lower energy production as required... some, like wind farms, will over and under produce depending on the weather.
The massive disadvantage of Nuclear IMO is the lack of Uranium directly available to most countries. It is idiotic, in my opinion, to switch entirely to an energy source that another country or countries could easily stop (a little like the UK is doing more and more with Russian gas now, and the US now does with oil... note both countries have reserves of each, but it'll cost more to use their reserves than buy it in). One way around this would be to build seawater extraction facilities, but they do cost a lot.
I hate conspiracies as much as the next man... I'm not Alex Jones. I personally believe that terrorists did attack and down the twin towers. What who knew when, I don't know, but I doubt the US administation knew about it prior to the attack. Building 7, however, should not have fallen down. I don't care about Juliani's pull comments.... the building was just not damaged enough to go down as it did. I've seen all the damage photos after the 2 towers went down, and there just is not enough damage for it to fall as it did.
The Premise : Someone has time travelled back to 1928 and is inadventertly filmed using their "mobile phone - like" communications device.
The Refutation : There wasn't a mobile phone network back then.
Looks like shes shielding her face from the camera or trying to hold her hat on
How is this insightful? It looks nothing like that. It looks like someone on their mobile phone.
However, just because it looks like that, doesn't mean it is that, and I don't for one minute think it is... d3ac0n gave a possible explanation below, or it could just be a crazy talking into a pack of cards.
Don't say something looks like something it's not just as a kneejerk reaction to it being "impossible". You're desperately trying to explain something you can't with stupid explanations, and that does nothing for those who actually try to explain it, and those who say "don't know", and are entirely valid in their opinion.
I was using strategy and tactics in a similar way, and I almost put a disclaimer on the bottom of my post saying that I was... That being said...
A safe definitional distinction: if it doesn't involve multiple units, multiple simultaneous objectives, and multiple sets of resources to manage, it is a misnomer to call it strategic.
Multiple units are in a team... you're not controlling them all, but you are affecting them all, and deciding upon how to interact. You never can have 100% control anyway. CSS has multiple simultaneous objectives. CSS has multiple resources to manage - ammo, grenades armour, etc.
I personally think that the differentiation between tactics and strategy is largely semantic in many cases... the only way to truly differentiate IMO is to say that strategy is creation of the desired objective, and tactics is the means used to obtain that objective. Most team based FPS games have both.
As a very simple example, in CSS, there are multiple bomb sites. Is it strategy or tactics deciding which bomb site to go to at the start of a round?
To perform a true comparison of detail retained, you could take long range pictures of text, then see if you could decipher it by any means possible. Would this work, or am I being overly simplistic?
More strategy != better game. Not necessarily, anyway. Certainly, hardcore FPS'ers would disagree with that. ("Strategy? Screw that, I'm knifing you in your kidneys. STRATEGY THAT! ")
There is plenty of strategy in (good) FPS games. The success of a team in Counterstrike, for example, almost entirely depends on their strategy and tactics... you can get a group of people who are great individually, but put them up against a proper team, and they'll lose 99% of the time.
Admittedly, most FPS experiences do not require any real strategy, but you did mention hardcore players.
A cheap 2 gigabyte stick of RAM is about £30 now, at most... how hard up are you not to be able to afford a couple, or at least one of those?
I don't get the Firefox memory issue. I've been running it for about 24 hours now, and it's sitting on 140mb in Vista64 (4gb installed, about 1.5gb used total ATM). I do get other issues with Firefox, such as the unable to close (even empty) tabs bug... but memory usage is not one of the problems.
If you don't like utilities using lots of RAM, make sure your operating system isn't throwing memory about randomly... Stuff like prefetch on Windows chews your hard disk and throws everything into RAM. Some people like it because it makes applications launch about 5-10% faster on average. I don't, so I turned it off.
Slashdot primarily writes for an American audience.
Slashdot may write primarily for an American audience, but that audience has the intelligence to understand complicated foreign terms like 4WD, right?
Anyway... the 4WD term is ambiguous... there are cars like the Lancer and Impreza that have been 4wd 4-door quick cars for years (Audi started it). Here in the UK we just call any car way too big for it's purpose Chelsea tractors.
In the UK, nearly all petrol (gasoline) retailers offer high octane varients (at a few pence more per litre). Tesco, the biggest supermarket, offers the highest octane (if I'm not mistaken), at 99 RON. I'm not sure what that'd be in the US system, about 94-95 I'd guess, since MON is about 10 lower than RON generally for petrol. Just having had a quick look around, BP seems to have a 102 RON varient as well, which I didn't know about, not sure how available it is... looks to be about 97-98 octane in the US system.
We're completely mixed up in terms of units in the UK - petrol is sold by the litre (AFAIK it's actually illegal to sell it in gallons now), yet everyone uses mpg to judge fuel use. The official way to measure it is l/km, but no one uses this. It's proper madness...
Vista worked well on relatively high end hardware of the time... my install initially went from boot menu to usable desktop in 15 seconds, from cold boot. Now it's about 25 seconds, because I've got more things preloaded. This is on well under top range hardware from two years ago. If that is bloated, sluggish, or whatever else... I've yet to experience a really quick boot.
One second people are blowing bubbles and the next they are throwing bubble bottles and then next it's rocks and people are setting cars and buildings on fire and looting.
Erm... What the fuck are you talking about? It's like I've entered an alternate dimension in which blowing bubbles is the first step onto becoming an international terrorist. Containing the situation is _entirely_ different from what was seen in the video. The cop was intimidating and overly aggressive.
Confrontationalism like this is what often escalates situations up the straight linear path from bubble blowing to arson and looting.
This is exactly what I tell anyone whenever they start talking, or asking, about HD failure rates. Apart from some obvious exceptions (IBM deathstar, I'm looking at you), HD manufacturors are much of a muchness. You get people swearing blind that one company had never failed them, while others swore blind that the same company produces garbage. I've always kind of had a soft spot for Maxtor, because it's hard to get over your own personal experiences, but I'm running 1 Maxtor, 2 WD, and 1 Seagate in my system now, so I can't have been that attached.
RAID-0 doesn't quite double your chance of failure (with 2 disks). If you've got a 10% chance of 1 disk failing in a year, you've got a 19% chance of a 2 disk raid0 failing. If you run a 10 disk stripe (mad, mad I tell you), you've got about a 65% chance of it failing. This is all assuming that all hard drive batches are equal. There's some evidence showing that if you but multiple disks from the same place at the same time, they'll probably last about as long as each other.
We destroyed civilian human lives and then came in to mop up the remains of a culture of beauty and philosophy, a culture that still understood the difference between a "warrior" and a "soldier." Now Japan is a land of broken, childish merchants, of bright lights and unbelievably ridiculous things.
No... no you didn't. Tentacle porn existed way before WWII, as one example of an unbelievably ridiculous thing which survived the atomic bombs. The Japanese now would be extremely annoyed by your shitty stereotyped classification of them. Japan is not broken, as you'd know, if you knew anything about it. Also note that the culture of beauty and philosophy, as you put it, had diabolically bad POW camps... perhaps they missed that bit of honor.
The fire bombings of Dresden, Hamburg and Tokyo alone (each lasting a few days at most) killed more people than the atomic bombs did. Many other cities were firebombed too. Just focusing on the atomic bombs when other bombing raids killed way more people smacks of sensationalism.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no infrastructure to supply the demand in the US now. Yes, there are reserves, but the US would be oil short (which might cripple the economy) for a couple of years if imports stopped. That's _very_ unlikely to happen though.
Losing 80% of the male population and 20% of the female is less devastating than losing 50% of each
The point was that population growth is not a problem right now. There have never been any drafts which would significantly affect population growth. Your percentage examples, and conclusion, may be valid if there was _ever_ a war which hit populations that hard.
What works for them is coming across a partner who does the same things as they do.
I think this is part of the problem... just because someone does the same things as they do, doesn't mean coming across them is acceptable.
Some of parent's post is bullshit, IMO... I think, however, that confidence is key (duh). Also, indecision destroys any illusion of confidence... you've got to know what you want to do.
Her : What do you want to do tonight?
You : Quite fancy going out to see a movie.
Her : Oh, I thought we could watch TV, and get a takeaway.
You : Yeah, that sounds good.
Now, this seems like an innocent enough conversation... however, you're missing something. She didn't necessarily want to watch TV and get a takeaway... no, that would be too easy. She might have wanted to go see the movie with you. You've accepted what she asked for, without any of your opinion being accounted for, and ignored the underlying messages. You'll be pissed off by not being able to do what you wanted to do, and she'll be pissed off because you'll be in a little bit of a sulk, and she wasn't thinking when she said she wanted to stay in, and wanted to go out anyway.
Her : What do you want to do tonight?
You : Quite fancy going out to see a movie.
Her : Oh, I thought we could watch TV, and get a takeaway.
You : But the new Twilight is out today!
You've made another fatal error. She knows you're either pandering to her interests, and not expressing your opinion, or actually like Twilight, and thus are not boyfriend material.
Her : What do you want to do tonight?
You : Quite fancy going out to see a movie.
Her : Oh, I thought we could watch TV, and get a takeaway.
You : Yeah, and then immediately after I've watched your (crappy television bilge that you insist on watching) interesting reality television, I'll hit a WoW raid with my friends.
Another fatal error. Never, ever, let her think that you're doing something for her benefit, which entitles you to time you'd rather spend elswhere later. Honestly, this is a common mistake.
Her : What do you want to do tonight?
You : Quite fancy going out to see a movie.
Her : Oh, I thought we could watch TV, and get a takeaway.
You : Come on hun, get up off that fat ass of yours, you lazy bitch. I mean, seriously... is your life's ambition to watch Jerry Springer 24/7?
Now, we're getting closer to decisive... however, we've gone a little overboard. When being decisive, try not to insult your partner... it may backfire.
Her : What do you want to do tonight?
You : Quite fancy going out to see a movie.
Her : Oh, I thought we could watch TV, and get a takeaway.
You : I really want to see this movie... I've booked a place at (new fancy restaurant) afterwards too.
Far from perfect, but getting there.
Troops go to war because the President/Congress/The People tell them to.
No. Troops go to war because they decide to... they are not automatons. Every single one of those troops has gone to war decided that going to war is the best option for them. You should not surrender your integrity when you enter the service.
That being said, I think _most_ of them made the correct choice, since they have been put in difficult positions. Some may feel the war is just, some may not. For the latter, the negatives against following orders have not been large enough. More responsibility lies with those who decided upon the war, but some still rests with those who carried it out. "I was just following orders" is not an excuse.
I grew up in Oman, you insensitive clod.
Seriously though, you can survive in very hot places without AC, you just can't _do_ all that much. At over about 40 degrees in the shade, your body expends most of its energy trying to get cool. AC just allows you to function fully all day long, it's not technically necessary (at least if not fighting a war). It hit 50 degrees in the shade a couple of times when I was there.
That being said, I (obviously) wasn't living in temporary structures over there, like tents.... most of my homes had AC (most of the time), and all proper buildings retained a little of the night cool to lower the high mid-day temperatures. The thicker the walls, the better they did it - some places with massive walls, without AC, remained at absolutely fine temperatures throughout the day.
1 : We haven't come close to using up the world's oil reserves yet. There's enough there for at least a couple of hundred years more at current usage (though some will cost more to extract).
2 : Solar power cells use rare earth metals, which we are much closer to using up than oil. Some extraction methods for these also leave a lot to be desired.
Seriously... it's not insane, it's just not quite as black and white as you pretend it is.
These numbers may be approximate for goods, however they are wildly innacurate for passenger journeys. Some little used rail systems actually average worse, in terms of co2 emissions per passenger, than single people in their cars. It all comes down to how many people are using the service - Full planes are better than single people in their cars too.
Why nuclear power? It is carbon neutral, inexpensive, has a lot of energy generating capability in a small area, and the technology is very mature.
Well, one out of three isn't bad.
It's not carbon neutral. There is no such thing as carbon neutral energy production. There are metric shitloads of concrete (for one example) used in just about all so called carbon neutral power sources. When calculating carbon production, you must take into account the co2 released in its production, and decomission.
It's not inexpensive compared to oil, gas, or coal, otherwise everyone would be on it already. It's only inexpensive compared to other "green" technologies.
It does however, as you say, have a lot of energy capability in a small area... also, it has the advantage over some methods of being able to pick up and lower energy production as required... some, like wind farms, will over and under produce depending on the weather.
The massive disadvantage of Nuclear IMO is the lack of Uranium directly available to most countries. It is idiotic, in my opinion, to switch entirely to an energy source that another country or countries could easily stop (a little like the UK is doing more and more with Russian gas now, and the US now does with oil... note both countries have reserves of each, but it'll cost more to use their reserves than buy it in). One way around this would be to build seawater extraction facilities, but they do cost a lot.
I hate conspiracies as much as the next man... I'm not Alex Jones. I personally believe that terrorists did attack and down the twin towers. What who knew when, I don't know, but I doubt the US administation knew about it prior to the attack. Building 7, however, should not have fallen down. I don't care about Juliani's pull comments.... the building was just not damaged enough to go down as it did. I've seen all the damage photos after the 2 towers went down, and there just is not enough damage for it to fall as it did.
YMMV
Seriously, whoosh...
The Premise : Someone has time travelled back to 1928 and is inadventertly filmed using their "mobile phone - like" communications device.
The Refutation : There wasn't a mobile phone network back then.
Really? You're taking this seriously?
Looks like shes shielding her face from the camera or trying to hold her hat on
How is this insightful? It looks nothing like that. It looks like someone on their mobile phone.
However, just because it looks like that, doesn't mean it is that, and I don't for one minute think it is... d3ac0n gave a possible explanation below, or it could just be a crazy talking into a pack of cards.
Don't say something looks like something it's not just as a kneejerk reaction to it being "impossible". You're desperately trying to explain something you can't with stupid explanations, and that does nothing for those who actually try to explain it, and those who say "don't know", and are entirely valid in their opinion.
I was using strategy and tactics in a similar way, and I almost put a disclaimer on the bottom of my post saying that I was... That being said...
A safe definitional distinction: if it doesn't involve multiple units, multiple simultaneous objectives, and multiple sets of resources to manage, it is a misnomer to call it strategic.
Multiple units are in a team... you're not controlling them all, but you are affecting them all, and deciding upon how to interact. You never can have 100% control anyway. CSS has multiple simultaneous objectives. CSS has multiple resources to manage - ammo, grenades armour, etc.
I personally think that the differentiation between tactics and strategy is largely semantic in many cases... the only way to truly differentiate IMO is to say that strategy is creation of the desired objective, and tactics is the means used to obtain that objective. Most team based FPS games have both.
As a very simple example, in CSS, there are multiple bomb sites. Is it strategy or tactics deciding which bomb site to go to at the start of a round?
To perform a true comparison of detail retained, you could take long range pictures of text, then see if you could decipher it by any means possible. Would this work, or am I being overly simplistic?
More strategy != better game. Not necessarily, anyway. Certainly, hardcore FPS'ers would disagree with that. ("Strategy? Screw that, I'm knifing you in your kidneys. STRATEGY THAT! ")
There is plenty of strategy in (good) FPS games. The success of a team in Counterstrike, for example, almost entirely depends on their strategy and tactics... you can get a group of people who are great individually, but put them up against a proper team, and they'll lose 99% of the time.
Admittedly, most FPS experiences do not require any real strategy, but you did mention hardcore players.
A cheap 2 gigabyte stick of RAM is about £30 now, at most... how hard up are you not to be able to afford a couple, or at least one of those?
I don't get the Firefox memory issue. I've been running it for about 24 hours now, and it's sitting on 140mb in Vista64 (4gb installed, about 1.5gb used total ATM). I do get other issues with Firefox, such as the unable to close (even empty) tabs bug... but memory usage is not one of the problems.
If you don't like utilities using lots of RAM, make sure your operating system isn't throwing memory about randomly... Stuff like prefetch on Windows chews your hard disk and throws everything into RAM. Some people like it because it makes applications launch about 5-10% faster on average. I don't, so I turned it off.
Slashdot primarily writes for an American audience.
Slashdot may write primarily for an American audience, but that audience has the intelligence to understand complicated foreign terms like 4WD, right?
Anyway... the 4WD term is ambiguous... there are cars like the Lancer and Impreza that have been 4wd 4-door quick cars for years (Audi started it). Here in the UK we just call any car way too big for it's purpose Chelsea tractors.
In the UK, nearly all petrol (gasoline) retailers offer high octane varients (at a few pence more per litre). Tesco, the biggest supermarket, offers the highest octane (if I'm not mistaken), at 99 RON. I'm not sure what that'd be in the US system, about 94-95 I'd guess, since MON is about 10 lower than RON generally for petrol. Just having had a quick look around, BP seems to have a 102 RON varient as well, which I didn't know about, not sure how available it is... looks to be about 97-98 octane in the US system.
We're completely mixed up in terms of units in the UK - petrol is sold by the litre (AFAIK it's actually illegal to sell it in gallons now), yet everyone uses mpg to judge fuel use. The official way to measure it is l/km, but no one uses this. It's proper madness...
Vista worked well on relatively high end hardware of the time... my install initially went from boot menu to usable desktop in 15 seconds, from cold boot. Now it's about 25 seconds, because I've got more things preloaded. This is on well under top range hardware from two years ago. If that is bloated, sluggish, or whatever else... I've yet to experience a really quick boot.
One second people are blowing bubbles and the next they are throwing bubble bottles and then next it's rocks and people are setting cars and buildings on fire and looting.
Erm... What the fuck are you talking about? It's like I've entered an alternate dimension in which blowing bubbles is the first step onto becoming an international terrorist. Containing the situation is _entirely_ different from what was seen in the video. The cop was intimidating and overly aggressive.
Confrontationalism like this is what often escalates situations up the straight linear path from bubble blowing to arson and looting.
Wow... honestly.
This is exactly what I tell anyone whenever they start talking, or asking, about HD failure rates. Apart from some obvious exceptions (IBM deathstar, I'm looking at you), HD manufacturors are much of a muchness. You get people swearing blind that one company had never failed them, while others swore blind that the same company produces garbage. I've always kind of had a soft spot for Maxtor, because it's hard to get over your own personal experiences, but I'm running 1 Maxtor, 2 WD, and 1 Seagate in my system now, so I can't have been that attached.
RAID-0 doesn't quite double your chance of failure (with 2 disks). If you've got a 10% chance of 1 disk failing in a year, you've got a 19% chance of a 2 disk raid0 failing. If you run a 10 disk stripe (mad, mad I tell you), you've got about a 65% chance of it failing. This is all assuming that all hard drive batches are equal. There's some evidence showing that if you but multiple disks from the same place at the same time, they'll probably last about as long as each other.
3.5" drives are deeper, so you can (and manufacturers do) fit more platters in. So volume does matter in that context.
And yes, I know, Raid isn't a backup, there's tapes for that.
Heh, shows how much you know... I run RAID-0.
We destroyed civilian human lives and then came in to mop up the remains of a culture of beauty and philosophy, a culture that still understood the difference between a "warrior" and a "soldier." Now Japan is a land of broken, childish merchants, of bright lights and unbelievably ridiculous things.
No... no you didn't. Tentacle porn existed way before WWII, as one example of an unbelievably ridiculous thing which survived the atomic bombs. The Japanese now would be extremely annoyed by your shitty stereotyped classification of them. Japan is not broken, as you'd know, if you knew anything about it. Also note that the culture of beauty and philosophy, as you put it, had diabolically bad POW camps... perhaps they missed that bit of honor.
The fire bombings of Dresden, Hamburg and Tokyo alone (each lasting a few days at most) killed more people than the atomic bombs did. Many other cities were firebombed too. Just focusing on the atomic bombs when other bombing raids killed way more people smacks of sensationalism.