This is not a question that has gone unexplored by professional scientists.
Answer: electric cars, even with dirty electric grids, are overall better lifetime. And electricity has more routes of production than hydrocarbon motor fuel, which is nearly all fossil petroleum plus a little unsustainable ethanol.
One thing that gets glossed over when people fret about the power grid is the recognition that a substantial amount of revenue which used to go to petroleum industry will be coming into electric utilities who could use it to upgrade equipment which will likely have a 30+ year lifespan. Warm areas such as Florida and Arizona have electric power, so the technology isn't unobtanium.
"Sounds great - one question though, why are insurance companies reimbursing for these expensive, ineffective treatments? Perhaps there is evidence they are effective after all?"
Insurance companies are interested in reducing health care spending to exactly the same degree that casinos are interested in reducing gambling, and for the same reason.
In significant measure, because of fixed distribution costs which need to be recouped from a low per-capita consumption of electricity. Party climate, and party attitudes and renewables.
Now, solar and wind make electricity and competitive commodity prices.
The private utilities are expensive and partly because of cost padding and profits, but the socialized municipal utilities in Los Angeles and Sacramento are quite cheap and also run on clean energy.
It is the de-Christianization of the Renaissance, followed by the more clearly anti-clerical Enlightenment philosophy of Europe. These philosophies were unique in the world. Europe was the wealthiest region at the time, and Isaac Newton was English. Newton is to my mind the most important human ever to have lived.
Don't forget to add 9 more months of Social Security and Medicare.
The set of their arguments and actions are incoherent nonsense, unless you understand the core single truth: they know an unwanted child in an unsuitable family situation is intensely undesirable---the purpose is to punish women for sex. That one supposition explains nearly all the observations.
Answered the magic genie: "Why yes, you did get a real honest-to-genie 100% government-free currency! Those people running your coinbase algorithms from a front company in Cyprus are definitely not going by any government rules whatsoever when they halt your trades in progress and pin your position against the market, clear for themselves, and then give you preposterously stale and unprofitable pricing, all while your available credit is locked up! That's not a bug, that's a guaranteed 100%-government-free feature!"
Exactly. This is how bad and scammer retail FX 'brokers' work. You have an agent, supposedly working for you to execute orders on the market, but that agent has a direct financial interest against you, and knows all your and other customer's orders.
There's a reason there are regulatory agencies and laws and all that Big Government nonsense, because in the past institutions had the same business model and same scams in traditional finance, but eventually they started to steal some powerful people's money so regulation happened, backed by "Thugs With Guns", as the libertarian useful idiots say.
This setup, trading private ious on a private unregulated 'exchange' which is really a business of its own has a very long history. Known as a 'bucketshop'. And it is inevitably filled with scammers and fraud, because the company that runs it has a direct financial interest in giving you poor prices and execution slippage.
Been there for equities (now forbidden), retail foreign exchange (lots of ripoffs there), and now bitcoin.
When professionals trade in banks, they ask *multiple* market makers for two-way, buy and sell quotes. Two way is important so that the counterparty doesn't know ahead of time whether you want to buy or sell. Not true when you're on a computer platform which already has your position and clicks---so it can shade prices and spread and blow you away or margin call you during volatility, giving you worse prices than the real market and pocketing the difference.
> Doesn't it report into the same CIA director? So not private
No, that's baloney. "not private" means "authorized by Congressional law and, usually funded by appropriation, and subject to Congressional & judicial oversight".
In full general relativity the question of conservation of energy is more complex than commonly imagined, and sometimes seems like 'nonconservation'.
Remember that the conservation laws are reflections of the presence of operations which leave physical laws unchanged (symmetries & transformations), which results in the usual conservation of energy in flat-spacetime.
And next---if there were some state prior to BIg Bang---what makes you think it had to be 'zero'?
After launched, their course is fixed, and non-recallable. Ballistic missiles run out of fuel very quickly after launch and fall to their targets on gravity alone (which is the meaning of 'ballistic'). The course is set by the launch dynamics, and a bit of maneuvering in space for a minute or two refines the target accuracy.
Only if launchers are modified specifically for tests. The deployed ballistic missile weapon systems, e.g. ICBM's and SLBM's have no such capability.
Firstly, there is no reliable means of reception by the missile or a reliable command system to transmit such messages, and if there were, it could be exploited by an enemy. Warheads are made to be very robust and sealed, given that they re-enter the atmosphere at stupendous speeds. They don't have any antennae or radios.
It's most likely that the weapon of choice vs North Korea is a B61-11 or B61-12, the most recent versions of an air-dropped weapon.
The air-dropped weapons are likely more precise and more suitable to use against reinforced underground structures with less surface yield.
Ballistic missiles, whether land based or sea-based can only use one particular warhead intimately configured with the delivery system and guidance, because of the need to match the mechanical dynamics & mass with the guidance. I.e. there is no way to change the weapon. Additionally, they are not as precise--they re-enter the atmosphere at extreme velocities within a giant ionization cloud, and prior to re-entry they have only one chance for guidance, immediately after release, and are thereafter falling, unpowered.
The ICBM and SLBM warheads are also very large (200-500 kt) and intended as retaliation. If you want genocide, any of them will do, but if you intend a military attack then you'd want to be more specific.
Against DPRK you'd be looking at using 'bunker buster' weapons---there are rumors that there are nuclear designs which may direct maximum force downward seismically (e.g. use the primary to accelerate a secondary penetrator downward?)---and probably low-yield neutron weapons against the artillery units threatening Seoul. Probably under 10kt.
Those need to be launched by bombers, or maybe from cruise missiles carried by those bombers.
In any event, it's insanity as it undoubtedly gets Seoul, Tokyo or maybe even Seattle obliterated. DPRK has plenty good enough missiles to put whatever size warhead they have already over Korea and Japan---and missile defense is awfully difficult. DPRK could easily launch 40 missiles simultaneously, four of which are nuclear, and each one puts out 10 decoys in space .
| Whoa! WTF? Not kidding, this is the very first time I have heard this conspiracy theory.
Uh, it's widely believed in the intelligence community, rumored that NSA/GCHQ has intercepts of Assange talking to Russians about this stuff and the election hacking.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not a question that has gone unexplored by professional scientists.
Answer: electric cars, even with dirty electric grids, are overall better lifetime. And electricity has more routes of production than hydrocarbon motor fuel, which is nearly all fossil petroleum plus a little unsustainable ethanol.
One thing that gets glossed over when people fret about the power grid is the recognition that a substantial amount of revenue which used to go to petroleum industry will be coming into electric utilities who could use it to upgrade equipment which will likely have a 30+ year lifespan. Warm areas such as Florida and Arizona have electric power, so the technology isn't unobtanium.
Stenting for heart attacks is a different issue than the one under question, and is known to be beneficial.
"Sounds great - one question though, why are insurance companies reimbursing for these expensive, ineffective treatments? Perhaps there is evidence they are effective after all?"
Insurance companies are interested in reducing health care spending to exactly the same degree that casinos are interested in reducing gambling, and for the same reason.
Clinton called one third of Trump supporters, not all Republicans, "a basket of deplorables".
I think this is quantitatively and qualitatively accurate.
Many of those secular politicians were in fact actual Communists.
In significant measure, because of fixed distribution costs which need to be recouped from a low per-capita consumption of electricity. Party climate, and party attitudes and renewables.
Now, solar and wind make electricity and competitive commodity prices.
The private utilities are expensive and partly because of cost padding and profits, but the socialized municipal utilities in Los Angeles and Sacramento are quite cheap and also run on clean energy.
It is the de-Christianization of the Renaissance, followed by the more clearly anti-clerical Enlightenment philosophy of Europe. These philosophies were unique in the world. Europe was the wealthiest region at the time, and Isaac Newton was English. Newton is to my mind the most important human ever to have lived.
> Quick, give me a single context in which it makes sense for CDC to avoid the words "science-based" or "evidence-based".
This is precisely the context of the article and the motivation.
The point is that CDC using words like that will jeopardize funding from a Republican Congress in 2018 and they want to avoid doing so.
> Either put up or shut up.
Don't forget to add 9 more months of Social Security and Medicare.
The set of their arguments and actions are incoherent nonsense, unless you understand the core single truth: they know an unwanted child in an unsuitable family situation is intensely undesirable---the purpose is to punish women for sex. That one supposition explains nearly all the observations.
I went to news.google.com 10 seconds ago. I didn't see one advertisement.
I don't see how Google makes any money off its news aggregation---they're doing it for free it seems.
They're making money in many other businesses but not news and the newspapers want some of it.
Peak rate of 0.185 per kWh? Canadian dollars? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! That's kitten stuff.
San Diego peak rates: 0.54297. http://regarchive.sdge.com/tm2/pdf/ELEC_ELEC-SCHEDS_DR-SES.pdf
The problem is rent.
Answered the magic genie: "Why yes, you did get a real honest-to-genie 100% government-free currency! Those people running your coinbase algorithms from a front company in Cyprus are definitely not going by any government rules whatsoever when they halt your trades in progress and pin your position against the market, clear for themselves, and then give you preposterously stale and unprofitable pricing, all while your available credit is locked up! That's not a bug, that's a guaranteed 100%-government-free feature!"
Exactly. This is how bad and scammer retail FX 'brokers' work. You have an agent, supposedly working for you to execute orders on the market, but that agent has a direct financial interest against you, and knows all your and other customer's orders.
There's a reason there are regulatory agencies and laws and all that Big Government nonsense, because in the past institutions had the same business model and same scams in traditional finance, but eventually they started to steal some powerful people's money so regulation happened, backed by "Thugs With Guns", as the libertarian useful idiots say.
Bitcoin is the business of experienced fraudsters ripping off naive libertarians.
This setup, trading private ious on a private unregulated 'exchange' which is really a business of its own has a very long history. Known as a 'bucketshop'. And it is inevitably filled with scammers and fraud, because the company that runs it has a direct financial interest in giving you poor prices and execution slippage.
Been there for equities (now forbidden), retail foreign exchange (lots of ripoffs there), and now bitcoin.
When professionals trade in banks, they ask *multiple* market makers for two-way, buy and sell quotes. Two way is important so that the counterparty doesn't know ahead of time whether you want to buy or sell. Not true when you're on a computer platform which already has your position and clicks---so it can shade prices and spread and blow you away or margin call you during volatility, giving you worse prices than the real market and pocketing the difference.
> Doesn't it report into the same CIA director? So not private
No, that's baloney. "not private" means "authorized by Congressional law and, usually funded by appropriation, and subject to Congressional & judicial oversight".
"Since I believe in democracy, I'm all for Trump being able to trash any and all federal departments - that's the power the Constitution gives him."
No it doesn't. The establishment and authority of those departments is law passed by Congress. The President is not a dictator.
> but the performance of the code you can write in C++ is vastly superior to all languages except maybe C.
If you do not need substantial byte manipulation, Fortran will be faster still and more naturally parallelizable.
Not negative. Like (-x)^2 = x^2. Which is why annihilation can result in two or more photons with net positive energy. (no such thing as anti-photon).
And gravitation of anti-particles appears to be identical to their normal counterparts.
In full general relativity the question of conservation of energy is more complex than commonly imagined, and sometimes seems like 'nonconservation'.
Remember that the conservation laws are reflections of the presence of operations which leave physical laws unchanged (symmetries & transformations), which results in the usual conservation of energy in flat-spacetime.
And next---if there were some state prior to BIg Bang---what makes you think it had to be 'zero'?
They can be re-targeted before launch. That's it.
After launched, their course is fixed, and non-recallable. Ballistic missiles run out of fuel very quickly after launch and fall to their targets on gravity alone (which is the meaning of 'ballistic'). The course is set by the launch dynamics, and a bit of maneuvering in space for a minute or two refines the target accuracy.
Only if launchers are modified specifically for tests. The deployed ballistic missile weapon systems, e.g. ICBM's and SLBM's have no such capability.
Firstly, there is no reliable means of reception by the missile or a reliable command system to transmit such messages, and if there were, it could be exploited by an enemy. Warheads are made to be very robust and sealed, given that they re-enter the atmosphere at stupendous speeds. They don't have any antennae or radios.
It's most likely that the weapon of choice vs North Korea is a B61-11 or B61-12, the most recent versions of an air-dropped weapon.
The air-dropped weapons are likely more precise and more suitable to use against reinforced underground structures with less surface yield.
Ballistic missiles, whether land based or sea-based can only use one particular warhead intimately configured with the delivery system and guidance, because of the need to match the mechanical dynamics & mass with the guidance. I.e. there is no way to change the weapon. Additionally, they are not as precise--they re-enter the atmosphere at extreme velocities within a giant ionization cloud, and prior to re-entry they have only one chance for guidance, immediately after release, and are thereafter falling, unpowered.
The ICBM and SLBM warheads are also very large (200-500 kt) and intended as retaliation. If you want genocide, any of them will do, but if you intend a military attack then you'd want to be more specific.
Against DPRK you'd be looking at using 'bunker buster' weapons---there are rumors that there are nuclear designs which may direct maximum force downward seismically (e.g. use the primary to accelerate a secondary penetrator downward?)---and probably low-yield neutron weapons against the artillery units threatening Seoul. Probably under 10kt.
Those need to be launched by bombers, or maybe from cruise missiles carried by those bombers.
In any event, it's insanity as it undoubtedly gets Seoul, Tokyo or maybe even Seattle obliterated. DPRK has plenty good enough missiles to put whatever size warhead they have already over Korea and Japan---and missile defense is awfully difficult. DPRK could easily launch 40 missiles simultaneously, four of which are nuclear, and each one puts out 10 decoys in space .
| Whoa! WTF? Not kidding, this is the very first time I have heard this conspiracy theory.
Uh, it's widely believed in the intelligence community, rumored that NSA/GCHQ has intercepts of Assange talking to Russians about this stuff and the election hacking.