He said every dialect is its own language, and if everybody in your neighborhood moved to neighborhoods with a slightly different dialect, your "language" died.
The difference is, us good, them look different. Simple, really.
We know our reasons, and we know our negative stereotypes about them, and that adds up to them not having good reasons for anything.
Considering their history and government, "wrongful" in this case probably means insufficiently loyal to principles of national unity. In the case of fake news, it means fabricated lies.
Isn't "pyramid scheme" an excessively simple thing for you to misunderstand by that much? Surely at your age you've heard a lot of things described as "pyramid schemes" before, are really so dull you never once considered looking up what that means, or at least asking somebody to explain it?
Naw, production and development are on different tracks, you would never want current production constraints to delay future development; especially when production is going really well, but growing pains limit growth speed.
As many have pointed out, if you repeat assumptions instead of retesting them, because you found a citation in a paper and don't need to test it, then you have a house of cards where each layer of the stack is guaranteed not to have more than a 5% chance of being structurally deficient.
Though in the end if you get it peer reviewed it will still count as "science."
Such a Simpson's-style deathtrap that the company operating it shut it down because they didn't want to try to fix it. It was still basically new at that point, too.
Which idiot is stupider, the one is afraid of things that aren't very dangerous, or the one who isn't afraid of things that are?
Simpson's-style death traps are a real problem in the world. Luckily, smarter people than you often get them shut down before there is a disaster, but there lots of known-very-dangerous plants still in operation.
"I did the numbers and didn't uncover a good reason" does not tell you anything about the people who designed it, or which professional associations they're a member of.
Actually it implies that you are not an engineer, not that they are not engineers.
And if we're starting with the knowledge that the device was in fact designed by engineers, then it just gets worse for you.;)
My wife bought her sister a fancy watch that has a translucent white plate behind the dial. It looks white and pearly, very nice, like a normal decorative watch, but actually it hides a PV cell that charges the watch. You never wind it, you never plug it in, it doesn't have to be worn and moved around, but as long as it receives at least normal indoor light for a few hours a week, it will stay charged. It just runs "forever" without maintenance.
This is actually going to be tech that is in most products in the future, because most use cases for electronics actually only need really tiny amounts of power once you get the engineering figured out! The vast majority of the electricity used by devices is wasted as heat for incidental reasons relating to making the current manufacturing cheap. However, manufacturing costs go down over time, and so the waste heat becomes relatively more expensive, and so the natural feedback loops of the business cycles leads towards increased efficiency.
We almost certainly are #1 at this, if you just find the right measurement to take.
Perhaps the more stupid people who believe everything they don't understand will fail that you have increases the rate of invention, because of a smaller number of people trying to prove them wrong? To get the effect though, you have to let the stupid people have complete freedom of speech, especially freedom to insult the rich and successful.
It would explain the contradiction between the US having so many stupid people, and yet having such a strong and continuing tradition of originating new technology. Here it is China doing a test, but lots of westerners have already done related experiments; this isn't a new thing or some kind of "innovation," though it was in the past.
Remember, the masses aren't the ones inventing things, the few do that.
My guess is that they are changing the mix and sacrificing durability for increased light transmission. But then the real problem is now that you have hard to replace concrete with the drastically shorter lifespan of asphalt and no real guarantee that it will keep working once worn and dingy.
I would say no, that is not the real problem at all. The entire problem being solved is probably just a lack of data regarding the actual durability properties of a mix that has sufficient transmission of light. The data produced will be useful not just for the roadway projects, but for all engineering utilizing photovoltaics embedded in devices that have an existing (unrelated) primary purpose. The roadway allows for real-world outdoor testing with fairly heavy, consistent loading, at low cost. People blather on about the cost of building the road without even having compared what a purpose-built testing facility would cost. Imagine the fuel cost of producing that much wear on the surface using a robot! You can do it more efficiently with a purpose-built robot than with a car; but not if the car is already driving on the road anyways! If the cars are only going where they were already going, then there is no fuel cost for this application at all, they can get the roadway to wear down with effectively zero operating cost. They only have to shoulder the construction cost.
Slashdot armchair engineers are so horrible, they see a millions of dollars saved on testing and perceive it as millions wasted on "useless" engineering processes guaranteed to "fail." Quick, somebody tweet at the crash test dummy and warn him he's guaranteed to fail!
Blathering about how you don't understand a use case, so therefore it is a bad idea, has nothing to do with engineering. I watch a lot of his engineering-related videos because they're in the results of my topical searches, but if I just watch a few of his videos in a sequence, a lot of it is just non-engineering-related bitching, and usually he doesn't do himself any favors with his weak analysis.
Like most engineers, he thinks lots of things are wrong or impossible or terrible ideas, especially things he's never worked with and doesn't understand. This is why when engineering channels venture beyond teaching what they do know about they quickly become totally full of shit even if the topic would appear at first to be related to engineering. Engineering doesn't have a secret magical sauce that makes them able to prove negatives; they're just less practiced at avoiding it than the sciences, and don't know that they should feel ashamed and embarrassed when they do it in public.
You might find that there are still land-use constraints.
You could always just test it; go to a desert in your country, and ask the local authorities if that means the land is free and you can build a solar farm anywhere you like. Then you'll know if these complaints were meaningful, or just blathering nonsense.
"But officer! Look how much space there is here! Who cares about ownership?!"
Actually, a bunch of neckbeards with one hand on the keyboard talking shit about something they don't understand isn't actually what "debunking" originally meant.
Etymology doesn't determine meaning, I know, I know.
Over two hours before you posted this, and higher up on the page, was one claiming a "physics" problem with it. So no.
When you start thinking you know so much more than the engineers that it means the engineers didn't understand "high school physics?" That should be your hint to self that you're full of shit.;)
Chinese engineers seems to be able to build bridges and world-class hydroelectric projects, they're probably using the same physics as other engineers. And of course, "high school physics" isn't what they use, because almost nothing they teach in "high school physics" is actually believed to be true; it is just some simplifications that are useful for students who might go on to later learn the (also incorrect) simplifications that they teach to physics undergrads at the University. Engineering students should definitely ignore all that stuff and stick to empirically-determined properties of available materials and never never never try to just guestimate based on some physicsy idea they came up with after getting an A+ in some bullshit HS class.
You've got some derp on your chin, O' Great Defender of All Things That Appear Slightly Sciencey From a Distance.
(Hint: If the physics didn't work, the engineers wouldn't even complete their design! Engineering is a math-driven field. The plans were not drawn up by neckbeards on slashdot.)
I mean, correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the only way to see what images people have on their desktops mean that the Metropolitan Police are poking around and doing some sort of unauthorized remote access into peoples' machines?
Where did you dredge up the word "unauthorized?" Why do you just presume that? Did you even know that child sex abuse is illegal, and that a warrant granted to search for evidence of the crime would be a legit authorization? Surely this is a tool to help the Metropolitan police poke around during authorized access.
No, they're not trying to get the computer to do all the police work, they're just trying to use it to narrow it down to nude images so that the amount of work they have to do is much smaller. This is for searching people who are already suspects.
Considering that they're specifically examining the computers of people suspected of harming children, it would make a lot of sense that it would be done with the goal of protecting those children.
It is one thing if what they're doing has nothing to do with children, and they use it as an excuse anyways. But if it does involve children, and you're saying that anyways, it makes me wonder if they should be looking at your computer, too!
Slashdot Mirror
He said every dialect is its own language, and if everybody in your neighborhood moved to neighborhoods with a slightly different dialect, your "language" died.
The difference is, us good, them look different. Simple, really.
We know our reasons, and we know our negative stereotypes about them, and that adds up to them not having good reasons for anything.
Considering their history and government, "wrongful" in this case probably means insufficiently loyal to principles of national unity. In the case of fake news, it means fabricated lies.
My guess as to the killer new feature is a swivel and tilt bed!
Isn't "pyramid scheme" an excessively simple thing for you to misunderstand by that much? Surely at your age you've heard a lot of things described as "pyramid schemes" before, are really so dull you never once considered looking up what that means, or at least asking somebody to explain it?
Naw, production and development are on different tracks, you would never want current production constraints to delay future development; especially when production is going really well, but growing pains limit growth speed.
Your statement doesn't make a whole lot of fucking sense.
You just have to learn how to translate it from Hater into English before assigning semantic value.
"I don't know" "about market research" "but that guy is bad" "because he's rich and loud"
As many have pointed out, if you repeat assumptions instead of retesting them, because you found a citation in a paper and don't need to test it, then you have a house of cards where each layer of the stack is guaranteed not to have more than a 5% chance of being structurally deficient.
Though in the end if you get it peer reviewed it will still count as "science."
Science is not a prayer wheel with science-y words attached.
It is highly unlikely that you have examples where it is normal for people to support their parents and grandparents.
Especially if those parents and grandparents have a pension and free health care.
Did you mean New Year celebrations are going to be a big headache?
How many average years of retirement are expecting them to get, where they have overlapping generations of retired people?
Hey, Dingleberry, the one from the Simpsons was this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Such a Simpson's-style deathtrap that the company operating it shut it down because they didn't want to try to fix it. It was still basically new at that point, too.
Which idiot is stupider, the one is afraid of things that aren't very dangerous, or the one who isn't afraid of things that are?
Simpson's-style death traps are a real problem in the world. Luckily, smarter people than you often get them shut down before there is a disaster, but there lots of known-very-dangerous plants still in operation.
Yes, but reading papers is not "doing science."
When you're not presented with a boundary, don't assume an absolute is implied.
"I did the numbers and didn't uncover a good reason" does not tell you anything about the people who designed it, or which professional associations they're a member of.
Actually it implies that you are not an engineer, not that they are not engineers.
And if we're starting with the knowledge that the device was in fact designed by engineers, then it just gets worse for you. ;)
My wife bought her sister a fancy watch that has a translucent white plate behind the dial. It looks white and pearly, very nice, like a normal decorative watch, but actually it hides a PV cell that charges the watch. You never wind it, you never plug it in, it doesn't have to be worn and moved around, but as long as it receives at least normal indoor light for a few hours a week, it will stay charged. It just runs "forever" without maintenance.
This is actually going to be tech that is in most products in the future, because most use cases for electronics actually only need really tiny amounts of power once you get the engineering figured out! The vast majority of the electricity used by devices is wasted as heat for incidental reasons relating to making the current manufacturing cheap. However, manufacturing costs go down over time, and so the waste heat becomes relatively more expensive, and so the natural feedback loops of the business cycles leads towards increased efficiency.
We almost certainly are #1 at this, if you just find the right measurement to take.
Perhaps the more stupid people who believe everything they don't understand will fail that you have increases the rate of invention, because of a smaller number of people trying to prove them wrong? To get the effect though, you have to let the stupid people have complete freedom of speech, especially freedom to insult the rich and successful.
It would explain the contradiction between the US having so many stupid people, and yet having such a strong and continuing tradition of originating new technology. Here it is China doing a test, but lots of westerners have already done related experiments; this isn't a new thing or some kind of "innovation," though it was in the past.
Remember, the masses aren't the ones inventing things, the few do that.
My guess is that they are changing the mix and sacrificing durability for increased light transmission. But then the real problem is now that you have hard to replace concrete with the drastically shorter lifespan of asphalt and no real guarantee that it will keep working once worn and dingy.
I would say no, that is not the real problem at all. The entire problem being solved is probably just a lack of data regarding the actual durability properties of a mix that has sufficient transmission of light. The data produced will be useful not just for the roadway projects, but for all engineering utilizing photovoltaics embedded in devices that have an existing (unrelated) primary purpose. The roadway allows for real-world outdoor testing with fairly heavy, consistent loading, at low cost. People blather on about the cost of building the road without even having compared what a purpose-built testing facility would cost. Imagine the fuel cost of producing that much wear on the surface using a robot! You can do it more efficiently with a purpose-built robot than with a car; but not if the car is already driving on the road anyways! If the cars are only going where they were already going, then there is no fuel cost for this application at all, they can get the roadway to wear down with effectively zero operating cost. They only have to shoulder the construction cost.
Slashdot armchair engineers are so horrible, they see a millions of dollars saved on testing and perceive it as millions wasted on "useless" engineering processes guaranteed to "fail." Quick, somebody tweet at the crash test dummy and warn him he's guaranteed to fail!
Blathering about how you don't understand a use case, so therefore it is a bad idea, has nothing to do with engineering. I watch a lot of his engineering-related videos because they're in the results of my topical searches, but if I just watch a few of his videos in a sequence, a lot of it is just non-engineering-related bitching, and usually he doesn't do himself any favors with his weak analysis.
Like most engineers, he thinks lots of things are wrong or impossible or terrible ideas, especially things he's never worked with and doesn't understand. This is why when engineering channels venture beyond teaching what they do know about they quickly become totally full of shit even if the topic would appear at first to be related to engineering. Engineering doesn't have a secret magical sauce that makes them able to prove negatives; they're just less practiced at avoiding it than the sciences, and don't know that they should feel ashamed and embarrassed when they do it in public.
You might find that there are still land-use constraints.
You could always just test it; go to a desert in your country, and ask the local authorities if that means the land is free and you can build a solar farm anywhere you like. Then you'll know if these complaints were meaningful, or just blathering nonsense.
"But officer! Look how much space there is here! Who cares about ownership?!"
Actually, a bunch of neckbeards with one hand on the keyboard talking shit about something they don't understand isn't actually what "debunking" originally meant.
Etymology doesn't determine meaning, I know, I know.
solar power is unpossible
Not a single comment has ever said that.
Over two hours before you posted this, and higher up on the page, was one claiming a "physics" problem with it. So no.
When you start thinking you know so much more than the engineers that it means the engineers didn't understand "high school physics?" That should be your hint to self that you're full of shit. ;)
Chinese engineers seems to be able to build bridges and world-class hydroelectric projects, they're probably using the same physics as other engineers. And of course, "high school physics" isn't what they use, because almost nothing they teach in "high school physics" is actually believed to be true; it is just some simplifications that are useful for students who might go on to later learn the (also incorrect) simplifications that they teach to physics undergrads at the University. Engineering students should definitely ignore all that stuff and stick to empirically-determined properties of available materials and never never never try to just guestimate based on some physicsy idea they came up with after getting an A+ in some bullshit HS class.
The problem is that the physics doesn't work.
You've got some derp on your chin, O' Great Defender of All Things That Appear Slightly Sciencey From a Distance.
(Hint: If the physics didn't work, the engineers wouldn't even complete their design! Engineering is a math-driven field. The plans were not drawn up by neckbeards on slashdot.)
I mean, correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the only way to see what images people have on their desktops mean that the Metropolitan Police are poking around and doing some sort of unauthorized remote access into peoples' machines?
Where did you dredge up the word "unauthorized?" Why do you just presume that? Did you even know that child sex abuse is illegal, and that a warrant granted to search for evidence of the crime would be a legit authorization? Surely this is a tool to help the Metropolitan police poke around during authorized access.
No, they're not trying to get the computer to do all the police work, they're just trying to use it to narrow it down to nude images so that the amount of work they have to do is much smaller. This is for searching people who are already suspects.
Funny coincidence, I read the Dune series when I was 14, too!
I think my reading went about the same way. Never figured out what the boring parts were supposed to be.
Considering that they're specifically examining the computers of people suspected of harming children, it would make a lot of sense that it would be done with the goal of protecting those children.
It is one thing if what they're doing has nothing to do with children, and they use it as an excuse anyways. But if it does involve children, and you're saying that anyways, it makes me wonder if they should be looking at your computer, too!