I would hate to see what you have outside of your immediate vicinity, unless you tend to keep all your GPS devices around you all the time and the rest of your space is free of GPS.

Can you explain what you mean by one-to-one? Most models of relationships are graphs, not functions. I am unsure what one-to-one means in this context. It does not appear that you mean each node may only have one mapping to another node, which would be, perhaps, the most sensible reading of a one-to-one relationship here.

In any case, node may be connected to any number of nodes, which means that a construct where you have six nodes, one self-identifies as "conservative" and five self-identify as "liberal". The "conservative" node may then be connected to each of the five "liberal" nodes. Is that one-to-one, by your usage?

Why?

Was it deliberate, your commenting on an unpublished article to illustrate a point about how people don't read articles?

People want to firms making these machines to curl up and die not because of intelligent users like yourself. They have the desire because of the masses of people who buy disposable, non-recyclable, non-reusable plastic cups of bad coffee, in the manner *that these companies want people to use them*.

The standard use case is a vastly wasteful enterprise, and designed to be that way.

Certainly, people can change their impressions, but impressions are not facts. Only the impressed can decide that his impression is incorrect.

If you have the impression that he was stating a fact, that's your impression. Your impression is not wrong.

My impression is that he was stating his impression.

In no way, did anyone claim that Ananonymous Coward was stating a fact that aliases are not a feature of PowerShell, but you seemed to have the impression that is what he, in fact, stated.

Those were impressions, not examples. Impressions cannot be wrong. Perhaps you missed the first, and most important, line of Anonymous Coward's post?

The ability and manner in which one does things are very different. Being able to do something does not mean it is easy, convenient or maintainable, for example.

A woman is held hostage and you comment on her being her own worst enemy and dis her choice of food, but ignore commenting on the morality of the man, who through violence and force held her hostage?

A market solution to healthcare does not work. For a market to function effectively, the consumer must be able to make rational choices. When it comes to healthcare though, patients do not have the expertise required to make rational choices. They turn to experts to advise them, but those experts, doctors, are compensated by the purveyors of medicines, tests and treatments for recommending those medicines, tests and treatments.

Basically, I was attempting to show that a claim that bus efficiency [much less than] (not sure how Slashdot wants me to typographically represent less-than less-than) car efficiency needs some data because a quick dig showed that it was far, far closer. You exemplified this closeness by showing that on fixed-length trips they are even closer than I claimed.

I agree that mpg is a poor metric for efficiency in passenger-miles. I used those, because that's what I found quickly and I did not want to put in the effort of conversion.

My post was not meant to be a rigorous study. I was merely asking the poster to who I was replying for their data, because my cursory look for their data did not show anything even resembling what they were claiming.

I don't require a link, but perhaps a name of an engineer or a name of a study or which RAS meeting? I am not finding any of what you mention online. Perhaps my search terms are lacking, so anything else to go on?

On what data is this assertion based? I spent a few minutes seeing if such data exist. I could not find data to support your claim that buses are far worse.

I found the following. A bus fuel efficiency is about 5 mpg [1]. That is with fifty-five passengers, which is the maximum capacity and therefore our lower bound. In my county, the average load-factor over all of 2012 was 479 million passenger miles divided by 44 million vehicle miles, or 10 passengers per mile.

Our average fuel consumption over number of passengers then is 50 mpg, which is not far worse than cars for energy efficiency. In 2006, the average mpg of a private vehicle on the road was about 20 mpg. Even with two people in such a vehicle, the average-loaded bus is better.

I did not dig very deeply; I was more trying to find your data and stumbled into data that seems to paint a different picture. It's quite possible that my data paints the wrong picture and you were using much more sound data, but because you did not provide it, I must ask for a citation now.

Which data had you used?

[1] http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00o...
[2] http://metro.kingcounty.gov/am...
[3] http://www.project.org/info.ph...

In my twenty years of using laptops, only Apple's trackpads were acceptable.

I was curious about how you came to believe and apply your generalization, because societal generations are interesting to me, and likely others in society. I don't care about your opinion of my personal education because that does not seem relevant to your opinion, your generalization, or your and my interaction.

Interestingly, you never did answer my actual question about candidates who went to schools that accept legacies but are not themselves legacies, which was the whole reason I posted in the first place. Instead, for an unknown reason, you gave me advice on how I might, if I wanted, get you to respect my education.