Whether it's free Wi-Fi or paid Wi-Fi, read those Terms of Service. I'm sure this activity was disclosed in theire [...]
Even if that lets them off the hook so far as the user is concerned, the website owner is not a party to those terms of service.
The question is whether it exceeds efficiency of other solar-to-electricity production.
It doesn't need to be better, or even as good. Being able to store the energy and generate baseload electricity is a huge advantage, and the inability of most solar power systems to do this is the main reason why they don't easily scale beyond a small fraction of total capacity.
That's not what 'rational' means: you can be rational without being altruistic or wanting to maximise the common good.
Only if said rational agent is too stupid to notice that they are part of a society. Altruistic behaviour
Atruistic behaviour is most certainly rational if you value the common good. There is also the concept of enlightened self-interest (although that is not technically altruism). This does not mean that non-altruistic behaviour is irrational.
You're making the mistake of assuming that if someone reaches a different conclusion from you then it is because of their defective ability to reason, as opposed to having different values or working from different evidence. That person in turn is likely to dismiss your reasoning as intellectual arrogance and we will get nowhere. If you understand why they reached their conclusion then you have a far better chance of convincing them to change it.
While it may be a correct mathematical statement reflecting the spread of infection, it is not a "rational" approach to immunization. If everyone followed that, then none of the children would be immunized. If 50% of the population followed that then the diseases would still be a problem. And so forth.
That's not what 'rational' means: you can be rational without being altruistic or wanting to maximise the common good.
I don't disagree with the rest of your analysis, but you won't win this if you have fundamentally misunderstood what the objections are.
At the end of the day the parent that doesn't vaccinate has made a bad choice for their child and their child suffers because of it.
Not necessarily. If vaccination rates are low then it is probably in everyone's self-interest to be vaccinated. If rates are high then the risk of infection should go down, in which case the risk of vaccination (which is unlikely to be zero) may become greater at some point on the curve.
You can argue that this is a selfish choice, and that the risk of vaccination has been greatly exaggerated by some commentators, but let's not try to pretend that there is only one rational outcome here.
It wasn't a jurist; it was the Judge. However, your skepticism still seems relevant...
A judge is a jurist (but not a juror, which is probably the word you were thinking of).
They found IE9 to be the best choice to defend against attacks aimed at IE9. Other browsers where found to be severely lacking in in defending against attacks aimed at IE9.
Not only that, but they ran all of the tests on Windows. That is hardly the platform that you would choose if you were trying to block malware, so given a free choice of platform IE would be at a severe disadvantage because it is tied to Windows[1]. The test nullifies that disadvantage by making all of the browsers play on Microsoft's home ground. I don't see how they could possibly claim that this was an unbiased test.
[1] unless you count IE5 on Mac OS, which is unlikely to win any prizes in this contest.
The article says the charge was "storing a computer virus without a legitimate reason". In this case, the suspect "told the MPD that he did it to punish people who use file-sharing software"; do you consider that "a legitimate reason"?
I can think of at least two organisations that might.
Poser - any Scotsman should know the whole island is Britain and it's hard to be independent of your own island. Perhaps you are confused as to the southeastern part of Britain? They're called the "English".
Poster - any American should know the whole majority of the continent is USA and it's hard to be independent of your own majority of a continent. Perhaps you are confused as to the existence of this mythical independent Republic of Texas? And the Confederacy, that never happened either, because it is completely un-possible to have two separate, independent, sovereign countries in the same land mass. In fact that bullshit about the sovereign nation called the Vatican being right there in the same landmass as that other sovereign nation called Italy, well you DO know that's just a lie right?
A more appropriate analogy would be for Canada to become independent of North America, which would be a major civil engineering project.
Great Britain is an island that includes most of England, Wales and Scotland
The British Isles is a group of islands that includes Great Britain and Ireland (northern and southern)
The United Kingdom is a sovereign state that includes England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland
uranium can create much more energy than coal: fission of one kg of U235 creates 83.14 TJ. The ratio of U235 in natural uranium is 0.72% so for every kg of natural uranium mined we have 598GJ available with 100% efficiency.
You're assuming that reactor fuel is 100% U235. The actual figure is more likely to be between 3 and 5%, with most of the remainder being U238. That means you need between 20 and 33 times less natural uranium than your calculation suggests.
The *only* issue is inventing a way to store power for the nights.
While that is certainly a problem, it is not as big a problem as storing power for the winter.
Then UK winter sounds like a prime candidate for solar power generation since skies tend to be clear.
I wish that were so, but we're too far north. That means the days are too short and the angle of incidence too shallow. In my experience, the energy generated in December is about a tenth of what you get in June.
Read the last sentence of CCTF/09-27. They would rather undefine TAI altogether.
That may be how it has been presented, but I think this is misleading: for practical purposes what they are actually proposing is to abolish UTC, then rename TAI to become the new UTC (plus or minus a constant).
All I'm saying is that if they are inventing a new system then they should give it a new name -- and if they are reinventing an existing system then it would be better if they reused the existing name, which is TAI. Is that really too much to ask?
The CCTF advises the BIPM. This note to the ITU-R was to point out that the BIPM is not tasked with nor funded for the distribution of a time scale. The BIPM produces TAI after the fact, and TAI is not available for use as part of an operational system.
From a bureaucrat's perspective perhaps. From an engineering perspective TAI can be trivially derived from GPS time, and almost as easily from UTC. It is quite absurd to say that it is 'not available for use'.
Besides, even if one were to accept the premise that TAI is somehow a second-class citizen amongst time systems, it would surely be simpler, less disruptive, and less confusing to promote it to first-class citizenship -- instead of fundamentally redefining the characteristics of UTC so that it becomes TAI in all but name.
No, we don't have this option. See CCTF/09-27 which was submitted to ITU-R SG7A in 2007-09 and which said
That's not their call. TAI a well known and well-defined time scale. Unless and until we become subject to the Digital Millennium Timekeeping Act or some similar insanity, we have the option to use it however we please.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
