The fertility rate in Norway is below two, has been since 1970s and is likely to stay for the foreseeable future
Well, mathematically it'll end sometime, when the final Norwegian woman - call her Helga the Valkyrie - dies without a single daughter.
I often see other cars with Partial Zero Emissions stickers. This confuses me as any part of zero is zero.
you are mathematically correct. It's bureaucratic gobbledygook.
The PZEV rating basically means that the car's emissions of everything *other than* CO2 are about as close to zero as you can get within the limits of chemistry. So the catalytic converters are top notch, the fuel handling system allows for ~0 vapor loss, NOx and CO out the tailpipe are nearly zero, particulates are avoided or captured.
PZEV is all great for air quality metrics like ozone and PM2.5, but doesn't do squat in terms of CO2, which is the emission that most people think about these days.
So why have such a rating at all if it doesn't include CO2? As far as I know, this came largely out of California, which has had really stringent car emissions standards for decades. The California Air Resources Board wanted a large number of "Emissions Free" vehicles on the road - battery-electrics and fuel-cell vehicles - but realized they weren't going to get anywhere close to that. So they created the PZEV rating as a "close enough" standard.
Most of the time a charger (proper one anyway) will set a certain voltage on the DATA+ and DATA- pins of the USB cable and the charging device senses this to know when it is appropriate to draw more power
Unfortunately, that method is not reliable, because every manufacturer implements it differently - it is not a part of the USB spec.
Following the spec, the only way to know the current rating is to either negotiate with the host (not usually possible for a standalone, "dumb" charger) or to have the data pins shorted together (a DCP according to the USB spec), in which case the available charge current should be 1.5 A min.
How weak is your "weakly charging" USB port
The USB spec - ya know, that thing that every device carrying the USB logo is supposed to follow - permits a connected device to draw a maximum of 100 mA until it is properly recognized (enumerated) by the host. This is probably what the GP is referring to: 0.5 W of available power (less after conversion efficiency) isn't a whole lot for a device like a Nexus 7.
After being enumerated, the connected device can request higher current levels, up to 500 mA max. It isn't supposed to draw more unless the host permits it. For many modern portable electronics (e.g., smartphones) that have a 3-10 Whr battery, a 2.5-W maximum charge rate isn't much.
There are amendments to the spec that allow for greater power: in 2009, the spec created a Charging Downstream Port, which allows for up to 1.5 A from the host after enumeration; and the Dedicated Charging Port (DCP), which shorts the two data lines together and allows for 1.5 A charge power without enumeration.
Individual companies, such as Apple and Samsung, supply their own USB chargers that allow for even greater charge current, but do so in a way that technically violates the USB spec.
I have no need to know this
Bollocks. That's like owning a car and not knowing what its gas mileage is. Even if you have no choice in who you buy your electricity from, you still ought to have even a vague awareness of this. Why? Because that is the reference point for everything else. It is also the denominator in figuring out what you pay for electricity on a per-kWh basis, which is what underpins every economic calculus on energy improvements.
Imagine, for a moment, that the poll question was "How much do you pay for electric each month?" It might be interesting in its own right, but would not be particularly useful (as the first 100 commentors would howl), because electricity rates vary tremendously across the country and world. But a kilowatt here is the same as a kilowatt there. Energy consumption is not measured in dollars, euros, and renminbi, but rather in kilowatt-hours, barrels of oil, and so on. If you want to gauge your own electricity usage against that of your peers, neighbors, countrymen, 1%-ers, or a third-world slum, you'll be comparing actual electricty usage - kWr - not money. When people talk about energy policy, sure, they talk about money, but mostly it's discussion about actual energy: how much do we need, how will we produce it, and what are the risks and benefits of doing so.
If you can't shop around for your electricity, you still have plenty of economic choices related to it. Making an effort to use less, or purchasing technologies that use less, is an economic choice. But if you don't even know how much you use now, how will you be able to gauge the effect of those choices? Want to put solar panels up to replace the local utility? Great - how much will you need? Weighing the costs and benefits of a plug-in vehicle? Great - how much electricity will it use compared to the rest of your home, and what will that cost?
Ignorance and inaction, too, is a choice, even if it isn't a conscious one.
More generally, the dividing line could be said to be the prime meridian. Places whose coordinates are given using west longitude are generally part of West Antarctica. Most maps of Antarctica are oriented with the prime meridian pointing up towards England. Things on the left side of the map are West Antarctica, the right side is East. Again, this is just a general convention - a way to get yourself oriented. (Even though McMurdo Station (77.8 S 166.6 E) would be in East Antarctica by this definition, it is traditionally part of West Antarctica because it lies on that side of the Transantarctic mountains.)
This is a cartographer's convention - giving names to places - and it has a particular European bias. But everyone that works in Antarctica uses the same naming convention, so there you go.
I think the real problem with healthcare.gov, which can't easily be tackled by small teams like this, is the vast amount of systems integration and testing that must be done to make something like this work. Theirs is a self-contained widget. Great. But there are about 50 other self-contained widgets - all of which I'm sure function just fine in isolaton. But there is no one authority thumpin' skulls to make them work harmoniously together. Until someone takes on that job, it'll always be a terrible morass. Even if we get someone to do that integrations job, you are still left with a large and irreducible amount of complexity.
In semi-automatic pistols, the slide (that upper part you talk about) does not return when the magazine is empty. That is, the reason it's stuck open is because it out of bullets. For a three-shot test they, very sensibly, only loaded three cartridges into the magazine.
1) Scale: the resolution of the printer isn't that much finer than the pitch of the threads. So, yes, you could model the threads in, but they would come out terribly, and you would have to chase it with a tap anyway. Much better to just model/print a smooth hole/cylinder and then cut the threads from solid material.
2) Helix Angle: unlike plastic SLS, which is light enough to be self-supporting, the metal powders need grown supports to handle overhangs. Depending on the density of the metal and the make of the DLMS machine, anything that overhangs by more steeply than 45 degrees needs to have support structure grown with it. For the rifling, which is a very shallow helix, no support would be needed if the axis of the barrel was oriented in the z-direction (i.e., normal to the build platform). (you would probably still want to chase it with a reamer to get the inside diameter to the right dimension, form, and finish.) For screw threads, which practically sit on top of each other, you would either need to grow supports that you would have to clean away afterwards, or build with no support and end up with shitty threads. Either way, you'd still need to chase the threads afterwards.
If the threads are coarse enough (greater than, say, an M10x1.5), you have a chance at directly growing the threads. But, really, you'll get better results by cutting the threads afterwards.