two competing requirements: lower emissions and higher mileage. Do they have any engineering expertise that proves this is even possible?
So cursory google searches do suggest that incomplete combustion is a common cause for both lower mileage and higher emissions. If two problems have a common cause, then addressing that cause addresses both items. If it is possible to more completely combust the fuel, it would be possible to simultaneously get better mileage and reduce emissions.
Then we will await systemmic!
Is there some significance to 1099, or is the joke related to the word mic?
The fun part for me was always the disk drivers.
XP 32-bit used the Windows 2000 style disk drivers, whereas XP 64-bit used the Windows 2003 style disk drivers. They were not compatible even putting aside the 32-bit/64-bit difference.
Windows 2003 had a 64 bit version, but Windows 2003 mainly was 32 bit. If you used the
The issue P is talking about wasn't getting more than 4GB it was getting exactly 4GB. Windows 32-bit used to lose some memory to addressing which depended on other hardware installed in the machine (not overhead since the memory wasn't in use, just the addresses were assigned to other things like video memory). While
Accident rate in general: 4-5% Accident rate so far with only 48 vehicles: 8-9%
4 in 48 : -6% -- +23%
However, that's a gross oversimplification.
>Plus there's the concentration issue - parts per trillion doesn't make for much of a problem in any case. Even the authors didn't make this out to be a health problem....
So you wouldn't mind drinking parts per trillion of heroin for your whole adult life? Or are you assuming that fracking chemicals are somehow safer, so that's not a fair equivalence?
Let's see if I can work this out. Heroin is an opiate, so effective dosage is probably in the milligram range. 369.41 g/mol so 1.63x10^18 parts for a dose. At ppt, you would need to drink 13 gallons of water to get a dose. From what I can tell it's about the same as taking a single Tylenol-3 every 11 days.
You'd have to pick some other human event to set the start date. You could go with the moon landing or the first atomic bomb test or any other number of historic dates that are well established... more mundane like the founding of Slashdot.
It should be based on the first time the ball dropped in Times Square.
From what I understand the 6000 figure comes from adding up the ages of the patriarchs in Genesis, and then tying the events in Genesis to a known historical event.
In order for person x to have existed during event y, Adam was created in year z.
I believe the x is normally Moses and the y is the reign of Ramses II of Egypt, but I could be mistaken.
There are more people living in and around Los Angeles alone than the population of at least half the states in the nation
The normal statistic for Undocumented workers is 1 in 10, so call the CSA a nice round 20 million.
If Los Angeles were a state it would be ranked somewhere between 3rd and 7th in population depending on how much of the outlying are you counted.
Yeah and that class action will cost Amazon a fraction of a percent of their yearly revenue while at the same time having scared plenty of their workers from trying to leave and work for anyone else for years while the court battle drags on.
If a contract has something like this in it, I'm guessing there's also language that mandates arbitration (vs lawsuit) and forbids class actions.
I can't play a modern video game from a major publisher without a clause that mandates arbitration.
He would be right _IF_, and only _IF there was a qualifier next to the use of "exponential" (As I originally stated). Unqualified, it is a psychological trick because your mind will automatically associate the provided "annual" qualifier to the term.
That is not to say you can't stop and rationalize it correctly, but that you have to stop to rationalize it to correct it makes it classic brainwashing ala Bernays and his ilk.
Exponential is an absolute term. It doesn't need a qualifier, if the formula fits it's exponential.
"97% of scientists believe man-made global warming is right."
"See, it's not unanimous!!!!"
"If 97% of doctors told you the mole on your cheek was malignant, wouldn't you get it removed?"
"You're a liberal elitist."
I know it's not actually completely necessary to your point, but I can't actually figure out which side you are advocating for or against on this.
There's a difference between email, where there is NO reasonable expectation of privacy
"Reasonable expectation of privacy" is a legal term. I can't find a case that went all the way to the SCOTUS that covers email. Further, it usually seems to be a side issue in most cases I've found. However, looking at cases it seems like email is thought to have the same expectation of privacy as a first class letter. With details about the email unrelated to its contents (such as email addresses, size, sites it was routed through, ip addresses, total volume email received) are not subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Also, once the email has been delivered, it's expectation of privacy diminishes, just like snail mail.
The numbers are identical and the two articles also make the same point. The two major differences are that Pew says U.S. is #2 because they don't include Mexico or Turkey in their list of developed economies, and that the chart in Pew is sorted on pre-tax/transfer numbers even though the article makes the point that that is not the best way to look at things.
Basically Europe has better benefits/higher taxation, so the overall impact of inequality is less than it would otherwise be when compared to the U.S.
The opossum is a very sophisticated animal. It doesn't even get up until 5 or 6 PM.