Not to mention that all Greek taxi drivers are also freelancer psychologists. Just start a conversation about women and that cab's back seat becomes Dr. Freud's armchair...
Not quite the same thing. Internet Explorer was almost a monopoly back then, which ended by Mozilla. Today there are options, IE does not suck that much and people are known to have all three major browsers installed. So, whatever. Let them try and segregate the web if they think they can. It's not that Chrome will have *the* killer feature that will make us stop using anything else. Or that will prevent the community from creating similar plugins for Firefox.
Sorry, Apple did have some iconic products, but the images in TFA are crap. They included probably the most uninspired designs in Apple history and left out products that really stand out from a design viewpoint like the apple imac g3 and the mac mini.
It's not improving the plight of the poor. It improves my perception of a situation. Let me elaborate: The "rich" side has many ways of expression available, advertising bombardment through the media being the most obvious example. The "poor" side has much less (e.g. a website, which is also more passive than, say, TV advertisements). Of course getting unbiased information is the best, but if a website or two is biased towards the opinion of the "poor", it doesn't worry me. The "rich" side will get their opinion through to me in some other way eventually.
Of course, I'm mostly referring to topics that have to do with commerce (although the same applies for politics and similar topics). There are other topics, e.g. science, where getting the most unbiased information possible is of much larger importance. Also, the meaning of "rich" and "poor" is always relative. Owning a computer and casually surfing the internet would grade you in the upper class in many countries.
The GP stated that his contributions were modified "usually for the better". This obviously means that the GP's edits were definitely not inconsequential: people saw them as improvements that can be further enhanced.
This means that I blindly need to install about 100 apps in order to get one or two that are "malicious". If some effort is invested in judging the legitimacy of the apps, then all 100 installs will probably turn out to be ok. This sounds pretty fine to me.
Because, first of all, algae are usually used for producing diesel, not ethanol. Second, because using algae to produce fuel is not worth it. It seems that although the science checks out, and algae is in theory a super cool medium for producing lots of plant-products, in reality there are some serious engineering, logistics and financial problems that are real show-stoppers.
Algal concentration in water needs to be quite low, or light won't penetrate the medium and the algae won't grow. This means that you need lots of water that you need to keep in constant motion (usually with the help of a paddle-wheel in a raceway) that you later need to get rid of, either by evaporation, centrifuging or flocking/filtering. These processes are energy hungry and/or require a huge investment and you need a large land area. Then you need to pump CO2 into the water to feed the algae, which is expensive. If you use flue gasses you need to get rid of the most toxic stuff before feeding it to the algae. The first method just has huge running costs, the second has large investment costs and means that you need to build your raceway next to a power plant. Although the algae themselves are very efficient as plants (no cellulose, no "inefficient" plant parts/roots, high oil/mass ratio), the engineering problems cause the efficiency of the whole system to plummet. In the end, algal cultivation is left with no significant advantage against traditional agriculture of land plants.
Add to the above the high complexity and sensitivity of algal cultivation (bio-fouling, pH-sensitivity, light penetration, shear stress resistance, etc.) and it will make sense why only a couple of companies world-wide have managed to make a profit from algae, and not by producing bio-fuels. It is mostly by producing more high-value stuff like carotenoids and the cyanobacterium spiroulina that is used as a food additive.
The real (boring) article will be about a German factory employing 8,000 people that is selling 3 billion in home batteries per year that work quite well and provide good value to their customers.
Also a fair point. The problem is with liquidity. A lot of people do not have 4 grand lying around (often because they are buying useless stuff all the time, but that is another point), so even if it is a good investment, people just can't afford it. People need to be educated in making investments not purchases. But try explaining that to the consumerist public.
My hat off to you, sir! It is a very important thing to acknowledge that you enjoyed some benefits that other people lacked due to the mere reason of being born with less.
In Europe, for example, facts and figures are checked and cross checked.
Right. That is why Greece was on its way to bankruptcy for about 30 years now and nobody noticed (publicly). At some point, Greece even fed the EU false numbers and nobody bothered to cross-check.
Which is yet another confusing and utterly wrong name, since people in a lot of countries use the word "polo" as in "water polo". I hereby suggest that "polo on horseback" be renamed to "horsegolf", since it involves using a long golf club on horseback.
Because Americans have lived in relative peace the last century
Say what? You seem to neglect two world wars, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Gulf war, the Kosovo war, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq and several other smaller conflicts, but other than that, then yes, Americans have lived in peace in the last century.
We have been very fortunate to live in such an age but now take it for granted.
You have been very fortunate to live in a country that had no war within its borders in the past century, and you take it for granted. Fixed that for you.
Slashdot Mirror
mouse slipped, modded overrated instead of funny. please ignore.
Not to mention that all Greek taxi drivers are also freelancer psychologists. Just start a conversation about women and that cab's back seat becomes Dr. Freud's armchair...
If it were that easy to avoid prosecution when breaking the law, then every criminal would incorporate and not worry anymore.
It actually is that easy, and criminals do incorporate.
Chimps are no more legal persons than corporations are. Oh wait...
Not quite the same thing. Internet Explorer was almost a monopoly back then, which ended by Mozilla. Today there are options, IE does not suck that much and people are known to have all three major browsers installed. So, whatever. Let them try and segregate the web if they think they can. It's not that Chrome will have *the* killer feature that will make us stop using anything else. Or that will prevent the community from creating similar plugins for Firefox.
Sorry, Apple did have some iconic products, but the images in TFA are crap. They included probably the most uninspired designs in Apple history and left out products that really stand out from a design viewpoint like the apple imac g3 and the mac mini.
Isn't MRI practically NMR? NMR is used for chemical analysis. Then how come MRI machines can't be programmed to do the same?
It's not improving the plight of the poor. It improves my perception of a situation. Let me elaborate: The "rich" side has many ways of expression available, advertising bombardment through the media being the most obvious example. The "poor" side has much less (e.g. a website, which is also more passive than, say, TV advertisements). Of course getting unbiased information is the best, but if a website or two is biased towards the opinion of the "poor", it doesn't worry me. The "rich" side will get their opinion through to me in some other way eventually.
Of course, I'm mostly referring to topics that have to do with commerce (although the same applies for politics and similar topics). There are other topics, e.g. science, where getting the most unbiased information possible is of much larger importance. Also, the meaning of "rich" and "poor" is always relative. Owning a computer and casually surfing the internet would grade you in the upper class in many countries.
SAP?!
Won't anyone think of the children?! This has to stop!
I'm a doctor, not an gardener!
I will take unpaid-for bias against paid-for bias every time. Yes, I get bias both ways, but at least it comes from the poor side.
You mean you have a golden "bible" that contains the absolute truth and can be completely trusted? Because if you do, you may own an actual Bible.
How come this troll is modded "insightful"?
The GP stated that his contributions were modified "usually for the better". This obviously means that the GP's edits were definitely not inconsequential: people saw them as improvements that can be further enhanced.
This means that I blindly need to install about 100 apps in order to get one or two that are "malicious". If some effort is invested in judging the legitimacy of the apps, then all 100 installs will probably turn out to be ok. This sounds pretty fine to me.
Because, first of all, algae are usually used for producing diesel, not ethanol. Second, because using algae to produce fuel is not worth it. It seems that although the science checks out, and algae is in theory a super cool medium for producing lots of plant-products, in reality there are some serious engineering, logistics and financial problems that are real show-stoppers.
Algal concentration in water needs to be quite low, or light won't penetrate the medium and the algae won't grow. This means that you need lots of water that you need to keep in constant motion (usually with the help of a paddle-wheel in a raceway) that you later need to get rid of, either by evaporation, centrifuging or flocking/filtering. These processes are energy hungry and/or require a huge investment and you need a large land area. Then you need to pump CO2 into the water to feed the algae, which is expensive. If you use flue gasses you need to get rid of the most toxic stuff before feeding it to the algae. The first method just has huge running costs, the second has large investment costs and means that you need to build your raceway next to a power plant. Although the algae themselves are very efficient as plants (no cellulose, no "inefficient" plant parts/roots, high oil/mass ratio), the engineering problems cause the efficiency of the whole system to plummet. In the end, algal cultivation is left with no significant advantage against traditional agriculture of land plants.
Add to the above the high complexity and sensitivity of algal cultivation (bio-fouling, pH-sensitivity, light penetration, shear stress resistance, etc.) and it will make sense why only a couple of companies world-wide have managed to make a profit from algae, and not by producing bio-fuels. It is mostly by producing more high-value stuff like carotenoids and the cyanobacterium spiroulina that is used as a food additive.
The real (boring) article will be about a German factory employing 8,000 people that is selling 3 billion in home batteries per year that work quite well and provide good value to their customers.
Like this?
http://www.nexeon.co.uk/news/nexeon-secures-strategic-investment-and-forms-partnership-with-world-class-chemicals-company/
Suddenoutbreakofcommonsense
Are there any news of a monolith?
Also a fair point. The problem is with liquidity. A lot of people do not have 4 grand lying around (often because they are buying useless stuff all the time, but that is another point), so even if it is a good investment, people just can't afford it. People need to be educated in making investments not purchases. But try explaining that to the consumerist public.
My hat off to you, sir! It is a very important thing to acknowledge that you enjoyed some benefits that other people lacked due to the mere reason of being born with less.
In Europe, for example, facts and figures are checked and cross checked.
Right. That is why Greece was on its way to bankruptcy for about 30 years now and nobody noticed (publicly). At some point, Greece even fed the EU false numbers and nobody bothered to cross-check.
as opposed to polo, which is played on horseback.
Which is yet another confusing and utterly wrong name, since people in a lot of countries use the word "polo" as in "water polo". I hereby suggest that "polo on horseback" be renamed to "horsegolf", since it involves using a long golf club on horseback.
Yes, but that was back in the 60ies. Today both Pakistan and India own nukes. See the comments from the others below for the actual reason.
A path! A path! A path!
Because Americans have lived in relative peace the last century
Say what? You seem to neglect two world wars, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Gulf war, the Kosovo war, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq and several other smaller conflicts, but other than that, then yes, Americans have lived in peace in the last century.
We have been very fortunate to live in such an age but now take it for granted.
You have been very fortunate to live in a country that had no war within its borders in the past century, and you take it for granted. Fixed that for you.