But how about if you're pushing a large bank of snow? Or pulling stumps?
Throw some stuff in the bed? I wonder if there's stuff you could throw in the back of a snowplow truck that would weigh it down while plowing snow, but then magically drain out of the truck when the weather warmed up.
Pack with you? Because that's a concern with desktop workstations?
The CPU and two video cards have a combined TDP of 680 watts--and that's not including chipset, RAM, drives, power supply, etc. I hope this thing has lead weights in the bottom; otherwise, the fans needed to keep it from melting into a pile of slag will scoot it across the desk when they spin up.
That's shit. My parent's car will get almost 50mpg. It's a diesel. My car will get more than 30mpg, and it'll do 0-60 in 6.
From your own link, that 40 mpg includes the carbon involved in manufacturing the vehicle and well-to-wheels comparison, so emissions-wise, it depends on the power mix. From that same page, the Nissan Leaf in California puts out emissions equivalent to a 70 mpg petrol car.
The right wing tends to be against regulation that erodes personal freedoms.
Did you really just say that with a straight face? DOMA, blue laws, the drug war...
The simple fact is that if everyone did 10 MB of volume per month, the past 10 years of money spent on infrastructure upgrades would have been unnecessary. The upgrades were done for those who use 10 GB, but paid for equally by everyone. Make a case where that's fair.
Wait, they paid for upgrades? My DSL is the same 6Mbps down/768k up that has been around for a decade--except they call it "U-Verse" now and charge three times as much.
And that's after the hundreds of millions in taxes that were added to our bills to fund those infrastructure programs. The telcos basically kept that money.
Yes... Just fine. Those stories of long waits, or unavailable diagnostic care are just rumors, I am sure...
Hey, just like my HMO.
Now that I'm in South Carolina, my apartment complex forces me into AT&T U-Verse, and it's not bad, but not great.
Is it real U-Verse? Around here, rather than actually deploy U-Verse, AT&T simply renamed all of its old crappy DSL offerings "U-Verse", so now they proudly offer U-Verse... with up to 6Mbps download and 768k upload speeds.
Regulation often has unintended consequences like this. If the thresholds were higher, for example, then the so-called "radioactive waste" probably wouldn't be.
Cool, we should just raise the thresholds high enough that they can dump the waste directly into the ocean. That way, the entire planet can be declared "radioactive waste-free." Problem solved, and the shareholders don't have to worry about those pesky "costs."
Hmmm, I think the state of California should be footing some of that bill since it is their updated regulation which is part of that cost. I really dislike how "chasing the nuisance" can lead to unrealistic costs for industries that generate unintentional or illusory externalities through the actions of the parties which experience (or merely think they experience) the externality.
The State of California caused the station to discharge radioactive waste into the environment and the steam tubes to corrode out prematurely? The shareholders, not the ratepayers or taxpayers, should be shouldering that cost.
In other words, both those subsidies are in the same place. Whether you "see" them or not depends on what "see" means and how you spin it.
Southern California Edison has already told us to start doing stretching exercises in preparation for being bent over to pay for the upcoming $4+ billion to decommission San Onofre Nuclear Plant because it's being shuttered early. That's in addition to the nuclear subsidies I've been "seeing" in my previous bills.
If they were coming in too slow AFAIK the proper thing to do is to go around, i.e. go full throttle, pull back on the flight controls and climb. My understanding is that going around would normally not be a mistake even if they're slow enough that they knew they would touch down on the runway (on the landing gear) and bounce up again. The idea is that it's usually a lot safer to take off and go around for a second landing attempt than to attempt to complete a landing that seems to be going wrong.
That isn't always the best idea.
There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.
