I have a reputation for being hard on candidates, and I do like to push them way out of their comfort zone, I like to use red ink on their resumes when I think a skill they claim is unjustified.

But, I'm more interested in how they attempt to do things rather than whether they really solve the problem. Some people crank out code instantly which has bugs, others just freeze up and I have to go elsewhere, but it's all part of judging the person.

Also, I feel the need to point out that this is a public charter school in Oakland, I don't pay any fees to send them there, but positions are limited. Most Waldorf schools are private. Truthfully I wasn't looking for specifically for a Waldorf school, we were just looking around for schools that were most likely to provide a good education.

They're pretty tech Savvy (Skye is even e-famous for playing Eve Online) but we felt that the school environment worked well for them. They're learning knitting as part of the hand skills but it's not just picking up some needles and yarn, they started out making their own yarn and needles - it's like those crazy hacker types who want to build their own computer and operating system :)

A lot of the player anger was driven by the fact that this arrived as part of an 'expansion' that managed to take away popular features and forced players to use the Walking In Stations interface even though said interface was incredibly resource intensive and melted GPU's. Also, they screwed up several months previously when at the last minute they dropped support for older CPU's because the library that simulated clothes and hair needed SSE3 extensions. The deployment of the new avatar technology has just been a mess and actual 'flying in space' features have been left unmaintained at the expense.

It should also be pointed out you didn't need to spend real money for microtransactions, you could buy PLEX from other players (who wanted to convert real money into game money) and then, this being Eve, you could troll other players by flying around with MT items that cost more than a capital ship.

Both these movies came out when I was working on my Thesis, which was about the impact hazard, so being something of an expert on the subject I knew I had to see these movies, and I knew I'd probably get annoyed by broken physics in both of them.

Paradoxically however, I loved Armageddon way more than Deep Impact. Armageddon just threw out any notion of reality right at the start and instead distracted me with stupid stunts and amusing one liners. Deep Impact kept trying to get things right, and kept just missing and had 1/3 of a good story which left me bored and uninterested.
(Deep Impact's worst sin was having the comet perform a 90degree turn just before impact, but you needed to be an astrphysicist paying a lot of attention to notice) .

Getting physics wrong is a lesser sin than crossing your own internal story consistency TBH, you can excuse writers for not knowing physics, but if they setup a rule in one scene and then break it in another then that's entirely their own mistake.

Just can't seem to get away.

I'd love to update my asteroid discovery movie for this, I've rendered a 4kx4k version for some lesser planetariums, but 8kx8k will mean upgrading my disk storage I think.

"I barely know what the hell just happened at the end of an episode"

Maybe it's a generational thing, but my 6 year old daughter frequently has to explain the finer details of the plot to her mum,

Sorry, Current generation of Who is consistently better than anything else from the modern of classic era, I've watched ever episode that exists and listened to all the Big Finish audio production and the Moffat era Who really is magnificent.

It says a lot that the best episodes in recent years have all been Moffat penned:
The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances
The Girl In The Fireplace
Blink
Silence In the Library/Forest of The Dead
and of course.... he's now the producer, he's yet to top 'Blink' - but it's consistenly better on so many levels that I find myself feeling sorry for both Tennant and Ecclestone who were fine actors but kept on being given poor scripts to work with.

There are many many classic era episodes that rank up there with the current generation - 'The Talons of Weng Chiang' and 'Genesis of the Daleks' being two particularly fine examples. But there's sooooo much mediocre dross like timelash that brings the classic show down.

The difference is that MP3.com was a different service, and besides, mp3.com was largely a copy of myplay.com - except myplay.com did it right and didn't get sued (they got bought by Bertlesmann and then shut down for being unprofitable)

Yes, before mp3.com launched their my.mp3.com service which was declared illegal.

Myplay tried to get the record industry interested in downloads, but they couldn't get any interest from the majors, the best they could do was their online storage service and DMCA compliant user tailored radio streams. No flash in those days either, you needed to configure winamp or some other external player to actually stream the content.

myplay never had any legal issues, they simply didn't have enough money to maintain such a service back when terabytes of disk space were only available in refrigerator sized racks of disks, and when most people were still on modem connections.

Nah, they can still use it, they just won't be able to buy a replacement.

Where do you buy a hand blown carbon filament bulb anyway?

Change the value to 23w and you reduce the mercury 'savings' to about 800milligrams - still 160times more than the mercury content of the worst CFL's

Redo the calculation then with your numbers - even if you reduce the Lifetime to 1000 hours the mercury from power plants is still 20 times higher.

I see the CFL = Mercury thing all the time and frankly it's avoiding the fact that the power savings from replacing an Incandescent with a CFL mean you take less power, burn less coal and release less mercury into the air.

Here's the math:
Take a 100w bulb and replace it with a 17W CFL - average lifetime of a CFL is about 10,000 hours. So that 83w power difference over 10,000 hours is 3 gigajoules. Coal power content is about 33 megajoules per kilogram - so that works out to about 90kilograms of coal over the lifetime of the bulb. Mercury content varies but about 10 parts/million is a reasonable average - so that pile of coal will contain about 900 miligrams of mercury. CFL's contain about 5milligrams (although there are 'eco friendly' bulbs that contain less than a milligram.

Now, there are other factors, firstly the fuel cycle of power plants isn't 100% so the amount of coal will be higher, on the other hand, in the US only about 50% of the electrical power comes from coal.

Regardless - Incandescents are *worse* in terms of mercury pollution, and anyone telling you otherwise is either misinformed or lying.