And saturnalia is just a celebration of the winter solstice and the birth of the new year. I've alway preferred Yule to Saturnalia, although both at least aren't so pretentious as to think they're much more than an excuse to party with friends and family. I mean who else besides the Scandinavians are going to have a holiday that involves 12 "wild nights" of drinking, feasting, and general debauchery. Now that's the way to do a holiday!
Um, not to be pedantic, but Easter is near the Spring equinox, not the Summer solstice. I stand corrected. However, the point still remains that Easter was used to replace pre-existing pagan fertility holidays.
You know, the the celebration Jesus's birthday? Interestingly enough there is no record of when Jesus was born. One of the original dates that early Christians believed was March 25th, which also corresponded with the date he was believed to have been crucified. Early Christians also did not celebrate the birth of Jesus because they believed saints didn't celebrate their births. The Christian church however has never been one to pass up an opportunity to subsume a competing religions holidays, and late December was a time when almost all cultures celebrated some kind of festival (Yule, Saturnalia, Sol Invictus, etc.). It made it much easier to convert people to Christianity if they got to keep most of their old holidays (see also Easter, corresponding to the Summer Solstice and many cultures fertility holidays [ever wonder about easter eggs?]).
Probably to make up for the complete lack of snow or really even cold weather. It's rather hard to get into the christmas spirit when it's 80 degrees outside, so people try to compensate by putting up ridiculously extravagant decorations.
Well, the FCC should have no claim, as most small transceivers aren't powerful enough to require FCC licensing. Now the RIAA (ASCAP?... maybe, but think that only applies to live performances) may have some sort of claim.
Who's talking about banning incandescent light bulbs? Several manufacturers are trying to phase them out, but unless there's something I missed it's an entirely voluntary thing.
The article mentions several light shows. The one from the video is south of Orlando in Kissimmee, but several of the others are actually in Orlando (or close enough at any rate).
Around Orlando the Sentinel is know as the Orlando Slantinel due to it's tendency to not quite give the full story. Not that that's relevant to this article. Maybe if I get a chance today I'll go check that house out, it would be cool to see it in person.
Wait, I'm confused... so, does this count as meta-humor now? Or is it just pretentious showing off? I guess maybe it would depend on whether he really doesn't know the Norwegian Blue skit or not. In one case he knows what he's talking about making this meta-humor, and the other he's trying to show off some deductive reasoning playing off of slashdot stereotypes. Or maybe he just really likes bullet point lists.
Close but no cigar. What he has issue with is that several of the jokes in the book are racist or otherwise objectionable to Chuck Norris and he doesn't want to be associated with those views. Now, whether he can defend against that is somewhat in doubt. As I said in another post, the quick fix to this whole thing is for penguin to slap a little blurb on the cover that says the book isn't authorized by or associated with Chuck Norris, and he'd have nothing left to object to.
Maybe a better example would be a book full of those "A priest, a rabbi, and a monk walk into a bar and..." jokes with a picture of each respective clergy member on the front being sued by the Vatican. You can't separate out Chuck Norris from the jokes, because the jokes are wholly a satire of Chuck Norris. If you read between the lines a little, what this really boils down to is that a number of the jokes in the book have upset Chuck Norris (mentions of racism and other things in TFA), and he's worried that people will assume he authorized the book. I'm not sure if this book has been published or not, but one incredibly simple fix is to just slap a little blurb on the front that says "This book is not authorized by Chuck Norris and is not affiliated with him.", and he'd have absolutely no ground to stand on then.
Using the image of an Olympic athlete to sell cereal is clearly no satire. The only hope Chuck Norris has of winning this lawsuit is he needs to prove defamation of character, otherwise a satire defense is rock solid. You can see a hint of this in the linked article where his lawyer argues that some people might be mistaken (highly debatable) about whether these "facts" are fiction or not, and that many of the "facts" are racist, or otherwise objectionable to the views of Chuck Norris.
You pretty much nailed it, the real problem is all the morons that drive so close to everyone else that they're constantly tapping the breaks and gas just to keep from hitting the person in front of them. I rarely need to break when I'm driving, I usually just let my foot off the gas and coast for a little bit by which point the brief slowdown in front of me has cleared up. The only time I really have a problem is when traffic starts to get bad and people feel the need to try and squeeze there car into any gap that's bigger then their own car by a few inches. I'm constantly amazed at these morons that having to dive off the road when traffic slows down just to keep from rear-ending the guy ahead of them and then they turn around and get right back on the guys bumper. Most people actually drive with a decent sized gap. I don't use any of the stupid rules about car lengths or times or whatever, I just eyeball it. I know my own reaction time, and I can usually judge pretty good how the people around me are driving. If I'm coming up on (or have them coming up on me) a whole pack of tailgater's (8 cars all bumper to bumper, the minute one of them hits the breaks they all franticly do the same to keep from plowing into each other) I'll leave just a little bit extra room because of the increased likelihood of an accident. The problem is the people that don't allow sufficient stopping time actually force the rest of us to overcompensate to stay out of the accidents that they cause.
That is an excellent point, although not quite relevant to the original argument. This started with the supposition that global warming would lead to the methane being released sometime within the next decade or so. Of course some sort of localized catastrophe always has the chance to trigger one of these things. I would imagine it could even happen if a magma pool formed in just the right spot, or as you suggest a meteorite could conceivably trigger it (although I'd think any meteorite able to get to > 300m underwater and still retain enough energy to cause localized heating of over 16C probably has caused bigger problems). It's definitely something important to consider as we move more and more towards utilizing ocean systems for power and other uses.
As to point 2, wouldn't allowing more space allow for the compression wave to be dissipated as each successive car has to brake over a longer distance and then at some time t + x there will essentially be no compression wave left? That is, with each successive car they don't need to break nearly as hard, and they can accelerate back up to speed once the person ahead of them also accelerates up to speed. I do agree however that the optimal solution is computer control, but until we reach that point it seems the safest method is simply to allow space for the compression wave to dissipate (some college group actually modeled this IIRC and showed how "bubbles" form in traffic and can be used to clear compression points).
You are correct more or less, at it's core breaking is a factor, however the point was that with a larger gap even excessive breaking is less disruptive and minor breaking has almost no noticeable impact on traffic. Another side effect of larger gaps is that they reduce the length of time it takes for a traffic jam to dissipate.
This is because you have to leave more space all the time which in turn makes it so less cars fit on the freeway. It also slows down everybody behind you because that can't very well get by you. The fastest way for traffic to flow is for people to allow the minimum safe distance in front of them at all time.
I don't see how you would be leaving "more space all the time". If you already have a gap, and some idiot doesn't try to jump into it just because it's there, there's no reason for you to slow down at all. I also didn't say anything about driving slower, just leaving more space between cars. Leaving a bigger gap would also make merging onto or getting off the freeway much simpler and people wouldn't be constantly worrying about cramming their car into some tiny gap before the jerk behind them speeds up to close it down because god forbid someone gets someplace half a second faster than them. There are really only two good solutions to this. First everyone leaves a bigger gap, and then minor slowdowns can be absorbed and dissipated without causing a big change in traffic flow. Second, you take the humans out of the equation and have a completely automated system with virtually no gap between cars. Either approach solves the problem (the first by absorbing slow downs, the second by treating all cars as essentially a single composite vehicle and having them all travel at the exact same speed).
Personally as to the problem with idiots jumping into whatever gap you leave, I usually try to stay just behind the bumper of the guy in the next lane over, that way there's still a gap in front of me, but no one can pass me without going around two lanes of traffic, in which case they're usually pretty far ahead already. And yes I'm usually one of the faster cars on the road, but some people don't feel you're going fast enough no matter how fast unless you're a foot of the bumper of the guy in front of you.
It is kind of like the Slinky effect, where you send a pulse down it and it rebounds. Car stops ahead and the cars behind begin breaking, and this begins a chain reaction... I'd love to catch this in the act at night and film the tail-lights lighting up in sequence. The term you're looking for is standing wave. The problem isn't actually the breaking, it's everyone not giving enough room between themselves and the person ahead of them to absorb small slowdowns. The time between when you slow down and accelerate back up to speed needs to be factored in. If the people coming into the jam are entering faster than people can accelerate out of the jam, it will either remain static or become worse.
I personally wouldn't have modded you flamebait, but I can offer a suggestion for how to avoid it in the future (although no guarantees, odds are if your statement isn't popular you'll still get a troll or more likely an overrated mod). Whenever you make a claim that will require people to take action, particularly if it's an unpopular opinion it's critical to cite sources. Remember the burden is on you to prove your point, particularly in a crowd of geeks. Most of us are open to discussion, we just ask that everyone has some sort of credible backup to their claims, either through logic, or by citing some semi-credible source. Please, if you can provide some links to papers saying that a small climate change of a few degrees will be enough to release the methane trapped under the ocean, then by all means post it, I'd love to read it. Of course I may have missed the point of your comment, so if you're trying to say you missed a variable and came to the wrong conclusion just ignore me. Likewise if you're saying I missed something let me know.
Yeah, but there are far fewer pilots than there are drivers. I can't imagine if my daily commute was airborne... Flip side of that is that by adding an extra dimension to the equation, traffic should be significantly reduced. Of course, the danger posed by even small collisions while airborne is much greater than while on the ground, so maybe it balances.
Well, that's a good idea, and a utility that calculated that would be cool, but exactly which prices should be used on the manufacturers sticker? I know even going just a few miles around here can mean as much as a 25 difference in the price of gas, and thats for regular. Should you calculate it based on premium gas? Who's electric company do we use for the electrical cost? I think you get the point. At a local level that could indeed be something you could do, maybe setup a terminal in the showroom of car dealers that computes it all using local pirces, but on even a state level there's an awful lot of variability in that.
And if you had stopped to actually consider what was being said you wouldn't come off as such an ass. The point is that you need an accurate metric to compare not only hybrids to traditional and electric vehicles, but also to each other. No one is trying to argue that a hybrid is somehow less efficient than a traditional car. Get your head out of your ass and read instead of just reacting.
Slashdot Mirror
So very very tempted right now.
Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything. - Frank Dane
Probably to make up for the complete lack of snow or really even cold weather. It's rather hard to get into the christmas spirit when it's 80 degrees outside, so people try to compensate by putting up ridiculously extravagant decorations.
Well, the FCC should have no claim, as most small transceivers aren't powerful enough to require FCC licensing. Now the RIAA (ASCAP?... maybe, but think that only applies to live performances) may have some sort of claim.
Who's talking about banning incandescent light bulbs? Several manufacturers are trying to phase them out, but unless there's something I missed it's an entirely voluntary thing.
The article mentions several light shows. The one from the video is south of Orlando in Kissimmee, but several of the others are actually in Orlando (or close enough at any rate).
Around Orlando the Sentinel is know as the Orlando Slantinel due to it's tendency to not quite give the full story. Not that that's relevant to this article. Maybe if I get a chance today I'll go check that house out, it would be cool to see it in person.
Wait, I'm confused... so, does this count as meta-humor now? Or is it just pretentious showing off? I guess maybe it would depend on whether he really doesn't know the Norwegian Blue skit or not. In one case he knows what he's talking about making this meta-humor, and the other he's trying to show off some deductive reasoning playing off of slashdot stereotypes. Or maybe he just really likes bullet point lists.
I would say yes on all accounts.
Close but no cigar. What he has issue with is that several of the jokes in the book are racist or otherwise objectionable to Chuck Norris and he doesn't want to be associated with those views. Now, whether he can defend against that is somewhat in doubt. As I said in another post, the quick fix to this whole thing is for penguin to slap a little blurb on the cover that says the book isn't authorized by or associated with Chuck Norris, and he'd have nothing left to object to.
Maybe a better example would be a book full of those "A priest, a rabbi, and a monk walk into a bar and..." jokes with a picture of each respective clergy member on the front being sued by the Vatican. You can't separate out Chuck Norris from the jokes, because the jokes are wholly a satire of Chuck Norris. If you read between the lines a little, what this really boils down to is that a number of the jokes in the book have upset Chuck Norris (mentions of racism and other things in TFA), and he's worried that people will assume he authorized the book. I'm not sure if this book has been published or not, but one incredibly simple fix is to just slap a little blurb on the front that says "This book is not authorized by Chuck Norris and is not affiliated with him.", and he'd have absolutely no ground to stand on then.
Using the image of an Olympic athlete to sell cereal is clearly no satire. The only hope Chuck Norris has of winning this lawsuit is he needs to prove defamation of character, otherwise a satire defense is rock solid. You can see a hint of this in the linked article where his lawyer argues that some people might be mistaken (highly debatable) about whether these "facts" are fiction or not, and that many of the "facts" are racist, or otherwise objectionable to the views of Chuck Norris.
You pretty much nailed it, the real problem is all the morons that drive so close to everyone else that they're constantly tapping the breaks and gas just to keep from hitting the person in front of them. I rarely need to break when I'm driving, I usually just let my foot off the gas and coast for a little bit by which point the brief slowdown in front of me has cleared up. The only time I really have a problem is when traffic starts to get bad and people feel the need to try and squeeze there car into any gap that's bigger then their own car by a few inches. I'm constantly amazed at these morons that having to dive off the road when traffic slows down just to keep from rear-ending the guy ahead of them and then they turn around and get right back on the guys bumper. Most people actually drive with a decent sized gap. I don't use any of the stupid rules about car lengths or times or whatever, I just eyeball it. I know my own reaction time, and I can usually judge pretty good how the people around me are driving. If I'm coming up on (or have them coming up on me) a whole pack of tailgater's (8 cars all bumper to bumper, the minute one of them hits the breaks they all franticly do the same to keep from plowing into each other) I'll leave just a little bit extra room because of the increased likelihood of an accident. The problem is the people that don't allow sufficient stopping time actually force the rest of us to overcompensate to stay out of the accidents that they cause.
That is an excellent point, although not quite relevant to the original argument. This started with the supposition that global warming would lead to the methane being released sometime within the next decade or so. Of course some sort of localized catastrophe always has the chance to trigger one of these things. I would imagine it could even happen if a magma pool formed in just the right spot, or as you suggest a meteorite could conceivably trigger it (although I'd think any meteorite able to get to > 300m underwater and still retain enough energy to cause localized heating of over 16C probably has caused bigger problems). It's definitely something important to consider as we move more and more towards utilizing ocean systems for power and other uses.
As to point 2, wouldn't allowing more space allow for the compression wave to be dissipated as each successive car has to brake over a longer distance and then at some time t + x there will essentially be no compression wave left? That is, with each successive car they don't need to break nearly as hard, and they can accelerate back up to speed once the person ahead of them also accelerates up to speed. I do agree however that the optimal solution is computer control, but until we reach that point it seems the safest method is simply to allow space for the compression wave to dissipate (some college group actually modeled this IIRC and showed how "bubbles" form in traffic and can be used to clear compression points).
You are correct more or less, at it's core breaking is a factor, however the point was that with a larger gap even excessive breaking is less disruptive and minor breaking has almost no noticeable impact on traffic. Another side effect of larger gaps is that they reduce the length of time it takes for a traffic jam to dissipate.
I don't see how you would be leaving "more space all the time". If you already have a gap, and some idiot doesn't try to jump into it just because it's there, there's no reason for you to slow down at all. I also didn't say anything about driving slower, just leaving more space between cars. Leaving a bigger gap would also make merging onto or getting off the freeway much simpler and people wouldn't be constantly worrying about cramming their car into some tiny gap before the jerk behind them speeds up to close it down because god forbid someone gets someplace half a second faster than them. There are really only two good solutions to this. First everyone leaves a bigger gap, and then minor slowdowns can be absorbed and dissipated without causing a big change in traffic flow. Second, you take the humans out of the equation and have a completely automated system with virtually no gap between cars. Either approach solves the problem (the first by absorbing slow downs, the second by treating all cars as essentially a single composite vehicle and having them all travel at the exact same speed).
Personally as to the problem with idiots jumping into whatever gap you leave, I usually try to stay just behind the bumper of the guy in the next lane over, that way there's still a gap in front of me, but no one can pass me without going around two lanes of traffic, in which case they're usually pretty far ahead already. And yes I'm usually one of the faster cars on the road, but some people don't feel you're going fast enough no matter how fast unless you're a foot of the bumper of the guy in front of you.
I personally wouldn't have modded you flamebait, but I can offer a suggestion for how to avoid it in the future (although no guarantees, odds are if your statement isn't popular you'll still get a troll or more likely an overrated mod). Whenever you make a claim that will require people to take action, particularly if it's an unpopular opinion it's critical to cite sources. Remember the burden is on you to prove your point, particularly in a crowd of geeks. Most of us are open to discussion, we just ask that everyone has some sort of credible backup to their claims, either through logic, or by citing some semi-credible source. Please, if you can provide some links to papers saying that a small climate change of a few degrees will be enough to release the methane trapped under the ocean, then by all means post it, I'd love to read it. Of course I may have missed the point of your comment, so if you're trying to say you missed a variable and came to the wrong conclusion just ignore me. Likewise if you're saying I missed something let me know.
Well, that's a good idea, and a utility that calculated that would be cool, but exactly which prices should be used on the manufacturers sticker? I know even going just a few miles around here can mean as much as a 25 difference in the price of gas, and thats for regular. Should you calculate it based on premium gas? Who's electric company do we use for the electrical cost? I think you get the point. At a local level that could indeed be something you could do, maybe setup a terminal in the showroom of car dealers that computes it all using local pirces, but on even a state level there's an awful lot of variability in that.
And if you had stopped to actually consider what was being said you wouldn't come off as such an ass. The point is that you need an accurate metric to compare not only hybrids to traditional and electric vehicles, but also to each other. No one is trying to argue that a hybrid is somehow less efficient than a traditional car. Get your head out of your ass and read instead of just reacting.