It isn't too much of a surprise that the economics of producing biodiesel from used restaurant oil are shaky; and it also wouldn't be much of a surprise if on-site/near-site illicit dumping by individual operators looking to avoid paying for collection would be pretty common; but I am a little surprised that, if you are going to go to the trouble of collecting the stuff, it isn't economic to burn in less demanding applications.
Could be that their fuel tax has something to do with it:
With state gas taxes now up to 44.5 cents a gallon, adding in the current federal gas tax of 18.4 cents, the total per gallon gas tax in Washington is now 62.9 cents.
A free barrel of grease used for fuel now costs $18.69 in Washington State.
Why don't you just use the word "similar," if it is not precisely identical? Perhaps your point is thin. As much as the plot is like IV, it is like I and VI, because he plots of I and VI are indeed very similar to IV. In regards to similar plots, the original 6 have similar plots as well. Even smaller scenes can be compared to the larger acts, in similarity. Sometimes, the shots from one of the films is entirely duplicated in another. Lucas created his masterpiece like a musical piece. Do you complain that the 3rd movement of a musical piece is "basically identical" to its 1st movement?
Perhaps you believe you are insightful, but your observation is as shallow as it gets. Basically, your insight is worthless. Let me rephrase that. Your insight is worthless.
However I object to the term 'ontological confusions', some people's philosophies aren't founded on logic
I object to your obvious confusion about the terms you're using. Why would anyone believe ontology has anything whatsoever to do with logic??! FYI, the things religious people believe has everything to do with metaphysics. Otherwise, nice massive Strawman fallacy of a post there!! And then more ridiculous people mod parent insightful? I know you think you're deep, alright, but you should stay in the shallow end.
Look, 'software developers' are, to a large part, engineering software. They're making a machine, an engine designed for a specific purpose.
Someone at Subway engineered all those sandwhiches. Someone at the bar engineered all those drinks. A software engineer's engine, code execution, running on processors and memory is a loose metaphor for a literal engine. I argue that programmers are certainly engineers, metaphorically speaking. A parent, however, is an engineer in the literal sense, if you accept that a human body is a literal engine in that it converts power to motion, does W ork as in W = F * d . Some code, I have no doubt, can do W=fd. Those programmers are literal engineers, but others are metaphorical.
Some type Bash commands, but never call it programming, and believe most who script would only describe it as such to one who never heard the term "scripting," because it is literally programming, but simpler and perhaps rudimentary compared to the big programming projects... there are other language examples. Many scripters are programming at the level of software engineering projects. But we all agree without ever raising a vote that scripters are not quite programmers, even though they absolutely are. Graphic Designers were once artists, and then there was WWW and suddenly page/site designers are developers.
At the end of the day, it is protected speech.
The United States doesn't lock up its crazy people and doesn't provide a reasonable option for their mental health treatment.
Ah, it didn't take long to blame mental illness over lack of rational gun control laws. Turns out, however, that while 1% of the mentally ill are homicidally violent (just like in the general population), 100% of shootings are actually fully caused by gun owners. Why can't the NRA police its own instead of pointing fingers? Because gun owners are nuts? Not likely. Most are closer to being children than being nuts. Put down the deadly toys, children. Time to grow up.
Science is not about great schisms where meanings and understandings are suddenly reversed from one generation to the next.
False. Science paradigms, for better or worse, remain in place for as long as it takes (Plato to Copernicus/Kepler, anyone?) for a paradigm shift to come along and pull the rug out from under the previous paradigm. This is how its always been. BTW, "modern physics" is always wrong... because its only a model, and NOT REALITY, and merely the best model we have to explain observations as close as we can. What science observes is reality, but the description and explaination is a model, a fictionional likeness of reality, but not reality itself. You're probably thinking of mathematics.
The reason guns kill people is because of a spring mechanism in guns, causing the hammer to fall, causing the primer to ignite, causing the projectile to
The reason most music sounds like shit is because the sound engineers...
must obey the artist they are recording
Though there are sound engineer unions, there has never been any movement within these groups to ruin music with dynamic nor bit compression. The trend of national music, known as the Loudness Wars, made possible by audio technology (not necessarily new or cutting edge, either) and those that competantly operate it and engineer audio, but only at the command of producers and artists.
IOW please stop blaming audio engineers, because its the same thing as blaming gun violence on springs
Once upon a time for a few decades, engineers perfected tracked and reproduced audio, perfected in the sense that, with intention and understanding of the underlying processes, the national product always had certain aural qualities such as separation and dynamism that worked with the artistic piece itself effectively making the audio reproduction science into a subtle or not so subtle artistic instrument that could be reasonably reproduced even on really crummy components.
Then artists got rich and decided they knew more about audio engineering than audio engineers.
There are some artists, of course, that took the time to actually learn engineering audio, just like there are writer-director-producer-actors in the film industry. But most recording artists have their one strong suit, and its in performance, composition, poetry and music, and not in visualizing the shape of the sound of how one instrument's single note at that particular time index pokes through the layered and spectrum overwhelming frequencies the other instrument happens to be filling. The artist with their technically untrained ear just says "yeah, but I can't hear the bass" or "you gotta turn my guitar up and my vocals down."
So please don't thank President Obama sarcastically and don't blame photographers for gimpy runway fashion models and what they're wearing... it was some artists with control-issues and a distinct lack of critical ear , and a commercial trend, that ruined recorded music; it certainly was not professional audio engineers.
. The US at large doesn't give a shit, and would on the balance prefer to not have their regular traffic/TV coverage messed with over a niche sport only played in the suburbs by children. I'm perhaps exaggerating
Not an exaggeration, but I have some OT points. There is a lot more money in World Cup Soccar than in, say, NFL American Football. Actually, that's an understatement. The coverage of NFL, the professional production ethics, the skill of the techs and producers, and the resulting broadcast makes World Cup look like what it is, really really shitty production. I can't tell you how many matches I've attempted to watch where it seems like the company producing the footage is using like maybe 3 cameras, and switches the audiences' view between them. What ever non-american production company gets that contract to produce the footage to televise soccar games is going to be very well compensated, and subsequently, very rich. Why can't they produce a broadcast that isn't painful to watch?
I submit that all it would take is for an American production team capable of covering NFL in the way we're all now accustomed to get the contract to cover the soccar games for the popularity of soccar in the US to increase. Actually, I think if some American film students got the contract, it would make the World Cup games 1000% more digestable to American audiences... and the international community would shit kittens at the increase in quality of the sports coverege.
Again, OT, or skew to the point of FIFA corruption, its obvious the corruption isn't merely at the top but extends to all business of the World Cup... otherwise, how could ONLY shitty foreign production companies land a contract to cover the richest sport in the world?
The Second Amendment clearly (to anyone who understands how English was used at the time) forbids the Federal Government from interfering, in any way, with obtaining and carrying weapons. (infringe ~ "even meddle with the fringes of")
Your interpretation is quaint, and incorrect, at least it didn't mean that until 2008, Columbia v. Heller
there is not a single word about an individual right to a gun for self-defense in the notes from the Constitutional Convention
Nor in the Constitution!
The public's understanding of the 2nd Amendment started to be distorted by the NRA early in the last century. The NRA has been filling the minds of gun owners with an interpretation that was never intended by the Founders for some time, so no one can blame you for your incorrect interpretation when a propaganda machine like the NRA has been bombarding you with selective truths and out-right lies.
Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia.
That includes gun trafficing, because stopping gun sales makes it harder to exercise the right.
Wow... THAT is OUT THERE. Of course, you are completely mistaken, and this bold statement of yours is wildly, dangerously inaccurate. Gun regulation is legal, and necessary.
Isn't that just a workaround for "you can't kill people," by letting them kill themselves? I am as romantic as any nerd about space. I even spearheaded a "Get Off the Planet" campaign in college. At the time, I didn't realize the truth of the matter is, the hard cold reality is, there is no place to go, even if it was economically or physically feasable. The only "space" to rationally escape to is Earth's orbit, where its possible to be resupplied.
But the summary premise ignores the fact that there is still plenty of room, i.e. most of the Earth's hard surface is unihabited, and there is even more liquid surface and subsurface uninhabited, quite a bit more. Currently, a lot of those areas may be unihabitable, but terraforming Earth, irrigating deserts, draining swamps, that sort of thing, is going to be so much easier, so much cheaper, so much quicker, so much more successful than trying to terraform Mars or any moons of Jupiter or Saturn, where sunlight, the ultimate source of all our energy, is deficit and more deficit the further you get from the Sun.
Seriously, this is the worst planet ever, except for all the others.
Kill Ugly Processor Architectures - Karl Lehenbauer