Re: If Apple were an apple, what kind of apple would Apple be?
McIntosh is the cultivar you're thinking of.
1741 posts • joined 5 Mar 2007
McIntosh is the cultivar you're thinking of.
Neither was 8 .
Didn't stop them.
Of course all of this ignores the fact that essentially all of the pollution a car will produce over its lifetime is produced during the manufacture of that car, and at the moment an electric car produces far more pollution in total (that means counting everything, not just CO2 emissions) during its manufacture than an equivalent IC car. Elon's big battery manufacturing plants might mitigate that somewhat, but I can't imagine they'd make a significant dent in the total, especially when you consider the environmental issues surrounding the mining and refinement of rare earths.
They saw it wasn't working properly, so they tried turning it off and on again.
No, it didn't. You're thinking of the failed Indiana Pi Bill, a legislative attempt to square the circle - something politicians and legislatures around the world have been attempting to do in one form or another ever since they were invented. It was just rather more literal in this case.
Here you go.
I have two. Credit. Debit. They're in my wallet, which is in my pocket. Unless iPhone users walk around with their phones literally glued to their hands and have the bonkpay app open all the time I don't think I'm going to be suffering any comparative delay finding my money.
Technically correct, but the lack of a distinct second-person plural in modern English has resulted in the evolution of a number of attempts to replicate it, especially in American English - yourselves, y'all, yinz and so on. If we were still using tou/thee it wouldn't be an issue, but of course language evolves to drop and reacquire forms all the time, so it's only inevitable. Perhaps in a few hundred years we'll have adopted something else equally silly.
And it was the one that broke the pattern and made the curse universal. Every Trek since then has been mediocre at best.
EU Directive 91/440 required all member states to separate the management of infrastructure from the provision of transport services. It was modelled on the "successful" Swedish practice, though between the directive being drafted and coming into force Sweden's railways went down the same shitter as ours would do a few years later.
Thing is, Sweden's railways are still state-operated and have suffered exactly the same issues as our own railways. The UK problem wasn't privatisation, but the lack of cooperation between the infrastructure management and the transport operators.
"here's not a great deal of skill in bricklaying. You trowel the mortar on the brick, press it down/slide it over the correct amount, and move to the next brick."
I've worked on enough projects and knocked down enough shonky walls after the fact to know the difference people people who think that way and brickies who are actually worth paying. Generally speaking, the people who do think that way are called apprentices and they're kept away from anything remotely structural or visible.
Any fool can slap mortar on bricks and call it a wall. It takes a long, long time before they're actually good at it.
The whole point of comparing like for like is to eliminate confounding variables - things that can't be controlled, like relative supply and demand, required skill, cost of operation and so forth.
Simple example: Bricklayers require a lot of training and need several years of experience to be any use, and are always in relatively short supply as a result (though not nearly as short as plumbers or gas fitters). Secretaries need to know how to turn on a computer, type reasonably well and answer phones, and can be had for pennies because there's a glut of people with these skills
A man working as a secretary will be earning the same as a woman working as a secretary (I know this, because I have done so), and a woman working as a brickie (and yes they do exist) will earn as much as a man working as a brickie.
The big brick and mortar retailers generally do send you vouchers for things that you want - or more accurately things that you are more likely to buy based on your shopping habits. They can be disturbingly accurate in their predictions - so accurate that they have to toss in unrelated vouchers to mix things up a bit.
Online retailers are amateurs in comparison.
Others have pointed it out, but it's worth repeating: most meat animals are kept on marginal lands that wouldn't be suitable for crop farming. Cows and sheep are the most efficient way of turning otherwise inedible grasses into food and they turn it into a form that is most easily processed by our bodies, as it's pretty much in the form we need it to be in already - proteins, fats, vitamins. Got to get that lovely offal down your throat too. You barely need to do anything to digest it.
Now you could argue the point on factory-farmed piggies, which don't live particularly nice lives at the best of times, but free-range piggies raised on the crap we throw out are particularly delicious, and given they consume a great deal of waste food that would otherwise be dumped (and the occasional farmer) they're good for the environment as well.
For the record I was raised out in rural derbyshire and lived close enough to farms to know what a mess an animal makes when you cut it open. That sort of visceral knowledge either turns you veggie or completely inures you to the whole thing. Fortunately for my tastebuds I soon came to the conclusion that piggies are at their best when they're sliced and smoked.
No downvote from me, but someone might have been a bit miffed that you forgot to mention all the transmission and conversion losses between the car and the power plant. They do even up the balance somewhat.
You misspelled Jobal Identity Foundation.
That's how it's pronounced, right?
That old story about microsoft and apple cars was a joke, tim.
Labour held a far larger majority and they couldn't push this shit through when they tried.
Pfft, they "tried". If they'd actually stuck with one platform instead of fundamentally changing it with every iteration and if they'd actually marketed it properly, and maybe if they'd not let the Symbian team murder it in the cradle... they tried with the N900 and N9 the same way Microsoft tried with Xenix.
The leading conclusions I expect to be drawn from the worm experiment are
a) that there are previously unaccounted effects of microgravity leading to a loss of muscle mass and tone
b) that the body's reaction to microgravity leads to unpredictable changes in metabolism that result in poor uptake of essential minerals
c) further that a certain amount of reduction in physical size may occur
d) that regular exercise along a general line of squeezing, bending and stretching may assist in staving of the effects, and
e) that the most viable long-term solution to the physiological effects of human habitation in space is to fill the entire cabin with high grade loam and require astronauts to burrow through it, thus mitigating the concerns of (a) and (b), negating the effects of (c) and fulfilling the requirements of (d).
Haha, fancy that...
Likely tweaking with the form.
Lets see if this works...
I suspect they invented the title of Sergeant Major just to troll people like him.
Bad example. Zirconia is a much prettier rock than diamond and isn't tainted by the dubious moral decisions of a monopoly supplier forcing an artificially high price through artificial supply restriction. So it's not a "cheap knockoff", it's an arguably superior product at a much more reasonable price.
That doesn't really explain the graun though. Or the independent. Or the... well you get the idea. Most media in this country isn't run by Murdoch and still somehow manages to be a complete shower.
"Someone hasn't read their Larry Niven..."
I plead guilty m'lud, and throw myself on the mercy of the court.
"The logical conclusion, therefore, being that the first colonists on Mars would have to be Clangers - right…?"
No. Mars has no blue string. They'd never survive.
What in heaven's name are you talking about?
The Apollo 14 astronauts were apparently exposed to 1400mrem over 4 days, which seems to be even less than skylab. There's a lot to account for there though. They were on the moon for a good portion of the mission and likely shielded from a fair amount of radiation by its sheer bulk.
All of which leads me to the only sane conclusion: in order to get to mars safely, we need to use the moon as a spaceship.
Well... the issue is that they gave them the dose all at once, and a quick check around the numbers makes me think it's a lot higher than anyone would expect to be exposed to in space.
Skylab 4 was an 84 day mission. The astronauts were exposed to about 17 rems cumulative over that time, or 0.17 Grays. That's for 84 days, or a rate of 0.0000082 Gy/minute (Assuming I can indeed count and am not ballsing up the conversion between rems and Grays, and I'd appreciate if someone checked the maths). This test exposed the mice to between 0.5 and 1 Gy per minute for a short but sustained period. If the skylab astronauts had suffered that sort of radiation absorption for the entire mission then they would have take on board 120,000 Grays of radiation. They'd be dead. In fact they'd probably have cooked right through.
This experiment suffers the same issue that a lot of mouse experiments suffer - they expose the mice to an unrealistically high dose of whatever is being tested and assume a linear relationship between dose and effect, and assume that a single large dose is equivalent to a chronic low dose. They don't examine whether there's an effect from low-level cumulative radiation exposure. They just blast them in the brain with what would be a fatal dose of radiation if it was sustained for more than a minute, and then act surprised when they turn out brain damaged.
Thing is, even assuming there is a cumulative effect from radiation, you have to account for the body's ability to absorb and adapt to radiation over a sustained period. If you expose someone to a cumulatively high dose of radiation over a period of a few years they will likely not suffer any effects from it, beyond an increased risk of particular cancers. Expose them to the same high dose of radiation over a second and their organs will melt and dribble out of their behind.
tl;dr the experiment assumes a linear relationship between dose and effect. The experiment posited an unrealistic environment and did not test what would happen in reality.
(and an assumption that the 1:1 rad/rem relationship holds in the particular situation described)
That's a funny way of spelling "Windows"
Don't forget India, most of south east asia, a third of africa...
Catenation is also a term in linguistics. It's less frequently used than concatenation, but nevertheless you can catenate words.
Sadly the wikipedia article about the word doesn't include that definition, which is presumably why this isn't so widely known today.
And, for the record, I'm still waiting for you to back up that accusation of plagiarism you made against me. But then I've noticed something of a pattern in your posting recently. Accuse someone of something, declare yourself superior in some way and then bugger off when you're called on it.
Wow. Did he piss in your cereal and steal your dog too?
"Vile". Try looking in a mirror.
She's called the first programmer because she did in fact write an actual algorithm based on the specifications of the analytical engine. It was never tested on hardware, but its existence can't be denied.
Here's the thing: they very nearly did it. The craft suffered a sticky throttle valve, which caused the guidance computer to overcompensate. On only their second attempt they got it down to the barge and very nearly landed it, but that throttle problem scuppered it at the last moment.
Frankly your initial post was correct. You know fuck.
The divert video is even better for demonstrating it. They can take the falcon through some pretty extreme manoeuvres already and they've advanced their capabilities quite a bit from that test. The technology is there and it works in ideal conditions, so they just need to figure out how to deal with the less-than-ideal. They've already demonstrated that they can get it to the barge and set it down in one piece. Of course it fell over, exploded and sank in the swa- er, sea, but the next one will surely stand firm.
Landing on a barge is harder than landing on land anyway. For one thing, the ground doesn't generally wobble up and down (unless you're having a really bad day).
"Obviously I know fuck"
Well I'll cop to it, but in my defence he did falsely accuse me of plagiarism without evidence and then never backed it up.
And I may have been a little tipsy.
And... yeah. Shutting up now.
Yep, that's what I thought.
Right. Show me where I allegedly copied it from.
Cut and pasted? Which part?
The entire concept of the split infinitive is derived from languages in which tenses are conjugated with suffixes and prefixes and the infinitive form is a single word. By contrast, the English infinitive includes the particle "to", a separate word.
The concept of a split infinitive is nonsense in most languages - you can't split a single word. The application of the split infinitive prohibition to English originally rested on the belief that because Latin - seen as the ideal language at the time the rule was invented - did not split infinitives, therefore no language should do so.
The problem arises, however: English is not Latin. Its grammatical rules are very different. The split infinitive does not apply and has not applied for perhaps a thousand years. To boldly go is grammatically as valid as to go boldly. Avoidance of the so-called split infinitive leads to clunky and occasionally confusing language structures, similarly to the prohibition of ending a sentence with preposition - it is unnatural to our language and needlessly pedantic. To so loftily and haughtily proscribe a linguistic form, merely because a latinist a couple of centuries ago decided such a form was inferior to the pure language of his study, is something we should no longer be required to put up with.
Daylight savings time wasn't invented for farmers, but as a way to save energy (by shifting work hours to times of day when less artificial light would be required) and to give office and factory workers more access to daylight in the evening. It was first proposed by a new zealander and first implemented in germany and austria-hungary during world war 1.
It is entirely a myth that it was created for the farmers. That's an excuse politicians use to justify its continued existence.
The Largo from Dvorak's symphony no 9 isn't about death. Going Home was based on it, but that was written by one of Dvorak's pupils.
Because internet radio appliances are known to have a built-in web browser...
... and I think I'll just nuke the lot of you and drive over the crumbling remains in me jeep.
" In Australia, eucalypt trees rarely exceed 350 years of age due to frequent fire disturbance."
By which they mean "exploded due to bright sunlight".
Australia. So deadly even the trees are bombs.
The prophecy has come true!