That's fine and all, except those tiny speakers simply aren't big enough to move enough air that you'd actually feel resonating in your body, which is the only benefit you'd gain in the undertones. It's just not happening. When it comes to sound, you either hear it or you feel it (or both,) and headphones aren't big enough to allow you to feel tones that you are incapable of hearing, making them worthless for that purpose.
"This sample really provides extremely strong confirmation that there are local wet spots deep in the Earth in this area,"
Did they have to roll it around in flour to find out? Just wondering.
There is definitely merit to keeping the undertones though. Although you can't hear them, you certainly CAN feel them if you have the right equipment. It wouldn't be useful for a portable player (I strongly doubt you'd get anything useful from a pair of earbuds or even some really uber expensive headphones) but audio formats shouldn't discard them.
The rate of change is a potential problem.
If that is the case, then what is the point of causing sudden mass disruption of the global economy in the ways that the green movement often advocates? We've already seen multiple times where poor economic choices have lead to mass famine, yet we haven't (yet at least) seen a single case where climate change has lead to the same thing on even remotely the same scale.
Denying what, exactly?
Funny thing though, when it comes to talk about cutting these subsidies, the "big oil" boyz are all against it. Sure, they're against green energy subsidies, but if you want to cut their subsidies, all of a sudden you're threatening the "lifeblood" of the American Way[tm].
Of course they are. Wouldn't you be opposed to somebody wanting to take away your free money? I'm a free market capitalist myself, and am not in any way part of the green movement (see my previous post for an explanation) but I really hate energy subsidies. But I also hate things like food stamps as well. Yet try taking even those away, you'll get people bitching and moaning about it.
I was actually on EBT once. When I started school later that year, they took it away (my income didn't increase, but my expenses did; they just have a rule that if you go to school full time then you are ineligible unless you meet some additional requirements.) Know what I did after they took it away? I just made due with what I had. The world didn't end and I didn't just suddenly starve, and anybody who thinks people will starve without food stamps is really ignorant.
Likewise, I can apply the same argument towards energy subsidies and any excuses that there are for keeping them, but getting rid of them would be like pulling teeth.
Or to be more precisely, how alternative goods/resources work.
If you take away 37% of the supply of electricity, it will need to be replaced. This means that alternatives to coal will go up in price, and your electricity costs will go up with them. These hipsters might talk all day about saving the rainforest, but in reality they'll never go a day without their ipads and a working espresso machine.
That would actually be a great opportunity for nuclear, however I have a feeling that these guys would hate nuclear even more than coal (I know it's stereotyping, but their type usually does and you'd be hard pressed to argue otherwise.)
Kind of a side rant, but I'm not sure what the ultimate purpose of preventing man-made global warming is supposed to be. The best argument I've heard is to prevent the loss of landmass to rising sea water, but that's already going to happen anyways (less than 100k years ago Los Angeles was under water, and no matter what we do it will one day again be under water.) Higher global temperatures have historically resulted in more arable land rather than simple increased droughts. If you want more physical landmass, then you'll need to drop the climate to ice age levels where biodiversity actually tends to suffer. During the age of dinosaurs, the carbon dioxidie PPM was 18 times higher than it is now, biodiversity was at one of its peaks, the overall climate was 8C warmer, and plantlife was more abundant than ever. In other words, history has shown that a warmer planet is literally a more green one.
So what kind of disaster is anti-climate change supposed to avert again?
Football fields IMO.
Honestly I get annoyed with password requirements that want you to have a special character, number, mixed case, etc. I just like to use really long but simple passwords; mathematically speaking, they're more secure than this mixed content bullshit while being easier to remember.
If you get a 404 not found, then you aren't having a DNS problem.
I have a bitcoin asic that does 8 billion sha256 hashes per second, and it is a cheap asic. Why not just throw each password+salt through a sha256 hash 1 million times? The requirement for brute force guessing it would be insane even with a really expensive asic, yet simple authentication if you already had the right password would be cheap. Just flat out forget about trying to do it with a regular CPU or GPU.
Wouldn't Walter White count as a chemical engineer?
Well, look at the areas he wants to deregulate. It's been pretty well established recently that regulation is what is causing broadband prices to go up. Take for example the laws that forbid municipal broadband - that is a regulation. Google Fiber has been able to do what it does because they've been able to convince local governments to throw out regulation. That city called Overland Park tried to pull up some red tape, so Google left them, and now their politicians likely aren't going to last another election as a result.
He's right: We need more local governments to remove legislative barriers to broadband deployment.
How so? Google knows people get it this way, and people distribute it this way out in the open, and google hasn't once threatened them with a lawsuit (unless they distribute it with a ROM, in which case they will do so.)