And really, 640 kg of unused plutonium ought to be enough for anybody.

Should that be considered a disability?

We don't need more web programming languages. Just one good one.

...and we are indeed the first who will learn a lot of lessons as we swarm across the galaxy once we figure out how to get off this damn rock.

You know, I've heard this attitude many times before, and I just don't get it. The Earth is beautiful. We've evolved to see it as beautiful, and yet people still aren't able to enjoy they great things they have right here. Protip: if you can't be happy here on Earth then you're incapable of finding happiness no matter where you go.

So, not just the price of the building permit, then?

The purpose of development charges is to defray (some of) the costs to local government that they would otherwise incur for doing things like connecting your new home to the water, sewer, electrical, and any other utilities; construction of roads and streetlights; construction and purchase of additional emergency services equipment (fire trucks and fire houses, etc.); construction or enlargement of water reservoirs, sewage treatment plants, and electrical substations....

In other words, there's a heck of a lot of new infrastructure capital costs associated with new expansion of a community--costs that wouldn't be incurred without the new construction. (The rest of your comment notes how precious a commodity water is, and how difficult it is to secure access to more of it.) Instead of loading those costs on to people already living in town, the municipalities put the costs on the developers, who in turn pass them on to the new home buyers.

If you were to instead demolish an existing home and replace it with a new one of similar size, the building permit costs would be far less than $30,000, since the home would already have water, sewer, roads, electrical service....

Yes. Also, yes.

With conventional, mechanically-linked, non-variable steering, if I twitch the wheel at 2 mph while creeping into a parking space, nothing happens. If I twitch the wheel the same amount on the highway at 60 mph, I lurch sickeningly across a couple of lanes of traffic.

A sensible system would allow me to make moderately-sized inputs at whatever speed I'm travelling, and convert those to appropriate adjustments of the wheels of the car: big deflections of my tires with lots of power assist when I'm parallel parking, tiny deflections when I'm changing lanes on the highway.

It's true that the GP is just representing one interpretation. Just thought I'd throw out my favorite "interpretation", (objective collapse theory) as it doesn't seem to get much love. No multiple worlds. No living-dead cats.

Also, instead of thinking of things being fundamentally composed of objects that are sort of both waves and particles I find it easier to picture them all as waves that only occasionally act as particles under the right conditions. This seems counter-intuitive since most of the world we experience is a result of these interactions that make them appear as particles. But it makes it a lot easier when picturing how things work with QFT and the difference between virtual and non-virtual "particles".

This is true. So...?

Absolutely correct.

I presume that you won't mind getting a copy of Meyer's Twilight instead of Stoker's Dracula. I mean, they're both vampire novels, so they're completely fungible, right?

Actually, this experiment makes a pretty good case that special and general relativity are a demonstrated facts. Unless there's some philosophical hair-splitting in the definitions I missed.

Well then I guess I'll just have to take your word for it Mister 914043. ;)

You know, I'd like to think there was a time when the majority of Slashdot users could cheerfully take on writing modules for the Linux kernel or *gasp* just code in C.

I know exactly how to use spreadsheets properly. Just don't.

(That's likely not true, but I'll roll with it for now.) The distinction is that emissions from ethanol burning are carbon neutral, whereas the emissions from fossil fuel burning are not. That is, each gram of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by burning ethanol came from a gram of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere by a growing plant. No matter how much ethanol you burn, you're only putting back the carbon dioxide that was pulled out of the air a few months earlier by a sugarcane or corn plant, rather than adding new carbon dioxide. In contrast, burning gasoline releases into the atmosphere carbon stores that had been sequestered for millions of years.

As an added bonus, ethanol is itself cleaner burning (and encourages cleaner burning of gasoline in blends), reducing emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and particulates (soot), especially in high-ethanol blends like E85.

That said, there is a caveat--there is an energy cost associated with the process of growing, harvesting, fermenting the crops used to produce ethanol. In many places, these processes still depend to some extent on fossil fuels--which can in turn offset some of the emissions benefits associated with producing carbon neutral ethanol fuels.

There is nothing deep about the concepts of addition and subtraction. Tell a young kid you have two different piles of a number of objects. Combine them into a big pile and count how many are in it. Now they've mastered the concept of addition. Take a pile of a certain number of objects. Remove a certain number from the pile, how much do you have left? By gum, the concept of subtraction has been mastered. The CC processes are tricks to do the calculations more quickly. And since we have calculators that can do that anyways, who cares?

Things get more complicated with fractions. One part that trips people up is how dividing a number > 0 by a fraction > 0 and 1 leads to a number greater than what you started with? (Assuming positive numbers). Say you have a medicine of 8 oz and you must drink 1 oz each day, how many days does it take to finish it? 8 days from 8 divided by 1. Now take the same 8 ounces and you have to drink 1/8 of an ounce a day - how long? Now the correct answer matches your intuition and it makes sense that you'd come up with something larger. THAT is an example of concepts, not calculation tricks.

My favorite example of a mathematical concept, something to introduce to students after they know simple arithmetic, is the method that a young Gauss came up with to quickly add the integers from 1 to 100. It's easy to understand, clever, can be easy to show how to generalize up to any number, and it begins to show the difference between arithmetic and math.