CO2 emissions are a measure of cost (to the environment), not efficiency.

It is true that CO2 emissions are a cost to the environment, they also are the efficiency, because in both cases, it is a breaking of a carbon hydrogen bond that releases energy.

The more total number of carbon-hydrogen bonds that have to be broken during the combustion end-to-end per BTU of heat applied to the water, the less efficient the method of heating ---- more carbon is being emitted per unit is just another way of saying that you are burning fuel and less of the thermal energy released from burning it is being harnessed as useful energy; when you burn coal to produce electricity, much of it is lost as heat and since the fuel doesn't burn cleanly much energy is lost in a useless form, on the other hand, if you burn a clean-burning fuel such as natgas within proximity to the water, almost all the heat released, can essentially be harnessed.

Not only are the coal-fired power plants less efficient at this conversion, but there are also huge transmission losses across the electrical grid (compared to smaller loss for natural gas in the form of an energy requirement to actually pump the fuel), and you should include a share of the energy required to install and maintain the electrical grid itself as part of the energy cost, so in terms of efficiency, using Electricity just to heat something is really not that great ---- it is much better to have a cleanly burning fuel at the point of use, where 99% or more of the fuel burned will be harnessed as energy.

The employee would also be liable for any injuries to other employees which occur as a result of his intervention, correct?

It is unlikely, however possible, particularly if the employee was taking actions they did not believe were within their required job duties where a reasonable person in the employee's place would be expected to foresee the danger to others, and the employee had a duty to avoid creating the danger, but it would be for the courts and attorneys to sort out depending on local state law.

The other employee would be on the job, so this would most likely be a claim within the workman's comp system.

In general, in the absence of an agreement, conspiracy, or intent to encourage, an individual is not liable for another 3rd party individual's decision to harm or cause damage to a 2nd party.

Also, if the 2nd party acts with clear intent to injure another employee, and they succeed, then they may have committed the felony of aggravated assault, which will likely eliminate the shoplifter's ability to sue.

In fact, I'm almost surprised he wasn't fired. You're not just not paid enough to run. It's potentially dangerous, and the damage from the shoplifting is smaller than the potential harm to you: it's unlikely but expensive when it does happen.

It's true that it is dangerous, and potentially very harmful to the employee. The store itself will also not have any liability for any harm that happened to the employee as a result, because any injury would fall under worker comp. process, and the Employee won't be granted payments for injuries from a fight started by the employee.

However, if the shoplifter is injured running from the employee, they can file a lawsuit against both the establishment and the employee, and the store may have significant liability.

A lot of retail workers won't care, but some will. Especially the ones who are smart enough to be aware of credit card fraud but not so knowledgeable they know about Coin.

In my opinion, they will learn pretty darn fast, or they will get fired. As long as Coin is legal, and the credit card companies decide to allow it.

The thing is.... the cardmember agreement says your Credit Card is The credit card company's property The physical card does not belong to you, the consumer, and you have no right to make a copy of it, So Coin DOES have to be authorized by Mastercard, Visa, Etc, and I would expect the retail employees to be trained to accept it.

If they refuse, I will be asking to speak to a manager and make a complaint about the employee, which I will follow up in writing to the retail establishment and to some officials at their corporate HQ.

That entirely depends on the relative costs of electricity and natural gas.

I didn't say cheaper, I said more efficient. Natural-gas based heating has half the carbon dioxide emissions per megawatt hour that coal-based electric production entails.

You forgot about the importance of "self esteem" and feeling that you can do something.

Too many kids eschew math, because they think they're not any good.

I say... tell them they're good.

"You're pretty smart for a kid, keep studying and you may have a great future. Keep up the good hard work though, if you aren't careful, the average students can still catch up with you and leave you in the dust."

No they don't. The amount of energy needed to heat water is basically constant; it doesn't really matter if it's happening in your machine, or your hot water heater. In fact, by heating it in the machine, you're saving a little energy because you're not heating up a whole tank,

Unless your house water heater is a liquid natural gas-based tankless hot water heater, in which case: an electric heater on your washing machine could be much less efficient.

Then get a second washer and dryer. If you can't afford that, then you shouldn't have so many kids.

That's a crappy response. The number of kids you have has nothing to do with your ability to afford a second washer and dryer.

You shouldn't need an extra washer and dryer, just because you have 3 or 4 kids, when a "normal" washer without the "EcoJunk" would be adequate.

I tried reading some of their justification for deleting the article, but it made absolutely no sense. It's a perfectly good topic to cover, and clearly I and others want to read about it!

Non-notable is Wikipedians' codeword for Spam / Self-Propaganda.

In other words, they are concerned that interested parties are writing articles about themselves, using their own publications as a source as a form of self-promotion, creating a systemic self-selection bias within the encyclopedia.

If Google doesn't want to subject itself to that criteria, then that's a tacit admission the simulation is not guaranteed to catch all the problems real world testing can catch, and I would consider their proposal to be invalid on its face.

I think this is more along the lines of them wanting to avoid the time and expense, since every new model will have to be tested after every code change, I guess.

The problem is.... can we really trust the simulations?

I would rather it be required to have a small fleet of at least 5 development vehicles log a few thousand road hours and cover at least 20,000 miles of road each. Say with a minimum of 15,000 miles city driving per vehicle in metropolitan areas, a minimum of 15,000 miles highway driving per vehicle, a minimum 5,000 miles high-speed interstate driving, 5,000 miles country road driving, and 5,000 miles driving around small towns. With at least 500 miles of driving within every category during each specific hour of the day, at least 50 of those miles [for each hour of the day within each category] in light rain at least 50 in heavy rain at least 25 in light fog at least 25 in dense fog at least 25 in light snow at least 25 in dense snow at least 25 in freezing rain/sleet at least 10 in heavy winds at least 25 miles in combination with 3 or more hazardous conditions, at least 1000 miles of the city driving and of the interstate driving and of the highway driving operating on congested roads during rush hour. Must include driving in at least 4 states with no less than 5,000 miles per state and at least 5 different cities with a population of 300,000 or more and at least 10 different towns with a population of more than 10,000 but less than 100,000, with no less than 2000 miles for each large city and no less than 1,000 miles driven per each small town.

All driving must be video taped and reviewed for safety failures. Testing must include at least 5,000 railroad crossings and at least 5,000 drawbridge crossings, at least 100 trials of crossings must show the vehicle being required to yield or stop due to a hazardous condition.

Any 1 failure on the vehicle's part, and the entire test fails.

google hurt advertising?
that will be the day

AdBlocker targets annoying ads such as popups, skyscrapers, floating ads, obtrusive word underlying, deceptive practices, graphical banners, java, flash ads.

Simple text ads, such as what Google uses are not generally harmed.

by default, and removed the ability for site admins to disable it by default

The problem is these "admins" are acting on behalf of the various Wikipedia communities as a whole. How WP is run, is supposed to be decided by the community.

If these "admins" actually administered the underlying infrastructure as well, this would be a non-issue, as they could simply refuse the software upgrade, or patch it.

The WMF is entrusted with this task, but the WMF is betraying the trust of the community. I think I might ask for my donations to be returned to me, since they are no longer acting according to their mission.

We've noticed that you have an Ad Blocker, as we're depending on advertisement revenue to provide you with free services - we will kindly ask you to turn your Ad Blocker off and reload the page to see your content.

PHASE 2: We need to get Google and other search major engines to identify sites that degrade experience for users running Adblockers, which is basically just a new form of cloaking, and either display a warning or demote them in search results.

Psh, the radiation levels coming out of a nuke plant are 1/1000th of that coming from even coal ash ponds.

People miss the fact that coal-based power generation releases a heck of a lot more radiation into the environment than nuclear does.

Also, water does not become radioactive when exposed to radiation in the plant, as long as the fission products are properly contained and no chemicals leak out --- which is one of the reasons water is considered such a great coolant.

but dont forget both geo and nuke are bad for the fish. indian point is facing some wrath now from the environmentalists for the water intake sucking in fish

Current implementation of nuclear technology requires water for cooling and steam generation. So I see how it can affect fish, if there is not an artificial intake pound and artificial lake for mixing warm water exhaust, before releasing back into the river/sea, but I think coal has an even worse affect.

Also, it is very likely that developments in nuclear power generation and new types of reactors such as LFTR could eliminate the problem of requiring large volumes of water to be sucked in and released.