US versions of Range Rovers tend to start at $83,000 and come - base - with nice leather appointments, heated seats, and the like. Not much like a Hummer at all (the original Hummer, that is) - unless you added a bunch of options.
Curb weight of a Land Rover Range Rover: 4918 pounds.
The aluminum body of the Range Rover saves 7 pounds (0.14%) of weight relative to the steel body of the F150. Apparently the rest of the components of the F150 are already considerably lighter than those of the Range Rover, and moving any of the body to aluminum will result in an even lighter vehicle.
Basically, adding up every OSX install since Tiger (April 2005) that are in use, you still end up quite short of the Windows 8/8.1 installs (about 14 months into availability). OSX continues to be a niche player in the desktop OS market, with Windows commanding ~88% of the entire market.
Quackery and divination and spiritualism also have pretty poor predictive powers. We should weight the quality of the predictions of an "realm of research" based upon the quality of past predictions, not the dire nature of future, unproven predictions.
I'm not sure how it's really relevant to the story. The ship is trapped in sea ice at a time of year when there is normally some sea ice around in Antarctica. They just got caught by some shifting winds or something.
The Antarctic ice volume is about 10X that of the Arctic. A 10% change in Arctic ice is equivalent to a 1% change in the Arctic; we haven't seen a 10% change in the Arctic, but we're close to that change in the Antarctic. Which is more important?
I pay under $5/bulb for LED, dimmable, 75W equivalent bulbs. I live in a warm climate, I don't want the excess heat from the bulbs. Maybe having options is a good thing...
But those same bulbs, down here in Southern California, would force me to turn on my AC much more than I do... Situations change, and having a selection of bulbs for different situations works best. Once again, we see the "one size fits all" solution that is often foisted on us by Federal Governments simply doesn't work.
I like lighting my house with a dozen, 15W bulbs rather than a dozen, 70W bulbs. The heat radiated into my house is considerably less and I don't have to turn my AC on down (note: I do live in Ventura, CA).
I bought the 10 pack here for under $5/bulb, delivered. The 15W bulb is about bright as a 70W incandescent, and they are fully dimmable without buzzing. Given they will last, very conservatively, 20 times as long as an incandescent, they will end up costing me the equivalent of $0.25 per bulb.
I like them because they last forever, and I'm not so worried about the cost of electricity, but living down here in Southern California, it's nice to cut the amount of heat output from the bulbs - keeps the house cooler, and I'm not having to run air conditioning at all.
But how does that explain the pretty big swings in temperature from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age? A few hundred years separate the two.
It doesn't, but that's because on a global scale there were no big swings in overall global temperature during the medieval warm period. The medieval warm period appears to be, based on the best climate evidence, a period of relatively small warming consistent with a small fluctuation in global temperature that was magnified locally in certain areas such as northern Europe.
Its worth noting that even the medieval warming period took place over centuries. There are very few things that can change global temperatures on a timescale of decades.
The change from the medieval warm period to the little ice age occurred over the span of 200 years. The MWP is generally considered as ending in 1250 AD; the Little Ice Age start has been put as early as 1350 AD, just 1 century later.
The point is that rapid changes in climate - over the span of decades or a century or two - have happened in the recent past, and continue to do so. Is our current temperature one of these natural rapid changes, or driven by man? Given that we've seen alternate periods of warming and cooling for several decades each, in the last century, I would suggest that a definitive answer one way or another cannot yet be drawn. We know the PDO, IPO and NAO, and AMO have cycles on the order of 30 to 60 years, and extrapolating trends from an accurate data set of less than 1 cycle (which is what we are trying to do; we have accurate, satellite based records for just over 35 years) is really not a wise thing to do.
But how does that explain the pretty big swings in temperature from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age? A few hundred years separate the two.
I do believe the scientific method requires YOU to bring the evidence, and to prove the null hypothesis has been dealt with. The scientific method requires those making the claim (in this case, AGW proponents) to show their work and their evidence.
I think the problem the government has with bitcoin is that bitcoin has the potential of destroying the US government. In fact, any currency other than the US dollar does actually.
The government currently has a habit of going perpetually further into debt (spending exceeds income every year for the last few decades, the only exception being during the economic bubble of the late 90's where tax revenues were artificially high.)
Just to point out, the last time the US Government ran an honest-to-goodness surplus of income, and paid down its debt because it had money left over (rather than increased its annual debt) was in 1957 under President Eisenhower.
It's been 3 generations since we've actually had a surplus at the Governmental level. The surpluses of the late 90s were strictly on-paper/on-budget items only, but every fiscal year since 1957 has seen the US Federal debt increase. Sometimes by huge amounts (like now), sometimes by small amounts (late 90s, mid 2000s), but an increase in debt annually nevertheless.
What the EU is doing - via confiscation/excessive one-time "special need" taxation of savings - is essentially a distributed default. It is taking from Peter to pay Paul, and in the process you're not teaching Paul how to better manage his finances and you're upsetting Peter and teaching him to NOT save up money because it's not his.
A big default is usually the best way to settle things out. Yes, it's painful. Yes, millions of people are left near-destitute. However, the alternative is to bring everyone down significantly (equality of misery) and to lose the lesson - don't be careless with your assets, nor promise away your future income stream (bird in the hand worth two in the bush).
Slashdot Mirror
OK, so that aluminum (or shall I say aluminium?) Land Rover Defender is at least 600 pounds heavier than the all-steel F-150. So much for the original concept that Land Rovers with aluminum bodies are "light".
US versions of Range Rovers tend to start at $83,000 and come - base - with nice leather appointments, heated seats, and the like. Not much like a Hummer at all (the original Hummer, that is) - unless you added a bunch of options.
Curb weight of an F150: 4925 pounds.
Curb weight of a Land Rover Range Rover: 4918 pounds.
The aluminum body of the Range Rover saves 7 pounds (0.14%) of weight relative to the steel body of the F150. Apparently the rest of the components of the F150 are already considerably lighter than those of the Range Rover, and moving any of the body to aluminum will result in an even lighter vehicle.
It breaks out as: Windows 8/8.1: 6.66% + 2.64% = 9.3%
OSX 10.4 to 10.9: 0.08% + 0.32% + 1.53% + 1.34% + 1.85% + 2.42% = 7.54%.
Basically, adding up every OSX install since Tiger (April 2005) that are in use, you still end up quite short of the Windows 8/8.1 installs (about 14 months into availability). OSX continues to be a niche player in the desktop OS market, with Windows commanding ~88% of the entire market.
My last corp (admittedly, "just" a $500M/yr revenue CE company) upgraded the video card in my desktop CAD workstation...
But Windows 8 does have more marketshare than OSX.
No, not yet.
Climate science’s predictive powers are poor.
Quackery and divination and spiritualism also have pretty poor predictive powers. We should weight the quality of the predictions of an "realm of research" based upon the quality of past predictions, not the dire nature of future, unproven predictions.
I'm not sure how it's really relevant to the story. The ship is trapped in sea ice at a time of year when there is normally some sea ice around in Antarctica. They just got caught by some shifting winds or something.
Maybe the something is a growing Antarctic ice sheet?
The Antarctic ice volume is about 10X that of the Arctic. A 10% change in Arctic ice is equivalent to a 1% change in the Arctic; we haven't seen a 10% change in the Arctic, but we're close to that change in the Antarctic. Which is more important?
Being able to upgrade the CPU or the video cards would be quite handy, wouldn't it?
I pay under $5/bulb for LED, dimmable, 75W equivalent bulbs. I live in a warm climate, I don't want the excess heat from the bulbs. Maybe having options is a good thing...
You can find them for under $5/each - delivered - from Aliexpress.com - I bought a dozen and they've been working great.
But those same bulbs, down here in Southern California, would force me to turn on my AC much more than I do... Situations change, and having a selection of bulbs for different situations works best. Once again, we see the "one size fits all" solution that is often foisted on us by Federal Governments simply doesn't work.
I like lighting my house with a dozen, 15W bulbs rather than a dozen, 70W bulbs. The heat radiated into my house is considerably less and I don't have to turn my AC on down (note: I do live in Ventura, CA).
I bought the 10 pack here for under $5/bulb, delivered. The 15W bulb is about bright as a 70W incandescent, and they are fully dimmable without buzzing. Given they will last, very conservatively, 20 times as long as an incandescent, they will end up costing me the equivalent of $0.25 per bulb.
I like them because they last forever, and I'm not so worried about the cost of electricity, but living down here in Southern California, it's nice to cut the amount of heat output from the bulbs - keeps the house cooler, and I'm not having to run air conditioning at all.
But how does that explain the pretty big swings in temperature from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age? A few hundred years separate the two.
It doesn't, but that's because on a global scale there were no big swings in overall global temperature during the medieval warm period. The medieval warm period appears to be, based on the best climate evidence, a period of relatively small warming consistent with a small fluctuation in global temperature that was magnified locally in certain areas such as northern Europe.
The medieval warm period was actually a global event. It was also not just Northern Europe but China as well, and Michael Mann (of hockey-stick fame) confirms it was a global event.
Its worth noting that even the medieval warming period took place over centuries. There are very few things that can change global temperatures on a timescale of decades.
The change from the medieval warm period to the little ice age occurred over the span of 200 years. The MWP is generally considered as ending in 1250 AD; the Little Ice Age start has been put as early as 1350 AD, just 1 century later.
The point is that rapid changes in climate - over the span of decades or a century or two - have happened in the recent past, and continue to do so. Is our current temperature one of these natural rapid changes, or driven by man? Given that we've seen alternate periods of warming and cooling for several decades each, in the last century, I would suggest that a definitive answer one way or another cannot yet be drawn. We know the PDO, IPO and NAO, and AMO have cycles on the order of 30 to 60 years, and extrapolating trends from an accurate data set of less than 1 cycle (which is what we are trying to do; we have accurate, satellite based records for just over 35 years) is really not a wise thing to do.
But how does that explain the pretty big swings in temperature from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age? A few hundred years separate the two.
I do believe the scientific method requires YOU to bring the evidence, and to prove the null hypothesis has been dealt with. The scientific method requires those making the claim (in this case, AGW proponents) to show their work and their evidence.
Anonymous Cowards always do well, it seems...
I think the problem the government has with bitcoin is that bitcoin has the potential of destroying the US government. In fact, any currency other than the US dollar does actually.
The government currently has a habit of going perpetually further into debt (spending exceeds income every year for the last few decades, the only exception being during the economic bubble of the late 90's where tax revenues were artificially high.)
Just to point out, the last time the US Government ran an honest-to-goodness surplus of income, and paid down its debt because it had money left over (rather than increased its annual debt) was in 1957 under President Eisenhower.
It's been 3 generations since we've actually had a surplus at the Governmental level. The surpluses of the late 90s were strictly on-paper/on-budget items only, but every fiscal year since 1957 has seen the US Federal debt increase. Sometimes by huge amounts (like now), sometimes by small amounts (late 90s, mid 2000s), but an increase in debt annually nevertheless.
What the EU is doing - via confiscation/excessive one-time "special need" taxation of savings - is essentially a distributed default. It is taking from Peter to pay Paul, and in the process you're not teaching Paul how to better manage his finances and you're upsetting Peter and teaching him to NOT save up money because it's not his.
A big default is usually the best way to settle things out. Yes, it's painful. Yes, millions of people are left near-destitute. However, the alternative is to bring everyone down significantly (equality of misery) and to lose the lesson - don't be careless with your assets, nor promise away your future income stream (bird in the hand worth two in the bush).
Why bother with digital currencies like Bitcoin when you have the Fed at your beck and call?
How are my firearms (and I have more than three - I guess that qualifies as an "arsenal") inflicting gun violence on you?
Define "presidency" other than "term", please.
Did you know that the average annual growth in GDP under Reagan was less than it was under Jimmy Carter?
Real GDP growth (meaning factoring in inflation) shows higher growth under Reagan than Carter.