If this won't render properly just go here
If this won't render properly just go here
I've noticed (particularly on facebook) that Republicans have a hard time with "your" and "you're", that was my way of laughing at a seemingly semiliterate fool. Maybe that's why Trump's in the lead?
Melting aluminium is an *ideal* use for unreliable power: the primary cells can run at variable rates or even in reverse to stabilize the grid, or some of the molten product can be staged for running optimized Al air batteries. Germany is already doing this,
From that link, other energy-intensive processes may be suitable, "including those used to manufacture cement, paper, and chemicals. Making chlorine, used to produce paper, plastic, fabric, paint, drugs, and antiseptics, also requires electrolysis."
Don't forget Ammonia, by fixating Nitrogen from the atmosphere.
About half the "green revolution"(*) was due to availability of Ammonia due to the Haber process, which means our ammonia production supports about half the food production on the planet.
Haber is energy intensive, requiring half a million Joules of energy per mole (17g) of ammonia produced, which comes out to about 5% of all energy used worldwide.
It's largely startable/stoppable, so would make another good choice for unreliable or unneeded (ie - solar panels in uninhabited areas) power.
(*) The other half due to pesticides.
What really bothers me is it should only take a few lines of code to replace garbage characters that slashdot shows with an ascii code for that character.
The worst is that it looks fine in preview, but the garbage comes out on the post. It's like they're deliberately trying to run off users.
It wouldn't matter to me if they were Hindu, Jewish, or atheist. What bugs me is when someone doesn't practice what they preach. But religion should play no part in politics, except that hypocrisy is a no-go for me.
Take gay marriage, for example. Government should have no part whatever in marriage. I should not need a license to get married, and why is it all right to discriminate against single people? Why should a married couple earning $50k pay less than a war widow with a child earning the same amount?
If government had no hand in marriage, the "gay marriage" issue would have never come up.
I never vote party, I vote individual candidate, and this time none of the Democrats are anywhere near as bad as the Republican candidates.
For those of you who think that voting Democratic is the lesser of two evils, note that the bill had strong bipartisan support in both the house and senate:
Yea 303: 179(R) 124(D)
[The USA Freedom Act] would make only incremental improvements, and at least one provision-the material-support provision-would represent a significant step backwards," ACLU deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer said in a statement.
Next up: the Trans Pacific Partnership. Let's all get together and vote for the party that does the least amount of damage to the American People! Yeah! That'll fix it!!!
One reasonable way to get good government to vote against all incumbents. Whether it's a red or blue congress critter, they'll fall in line once they realize that they only get 1 term if they screw over the people.
Another reasonable solution is to vote for non-insiders. Not Hillary, or Jeb or Chris or Marco.
This year the choices seem to be between "experience" and "change". Which of those would be the best for Americans?
Just because Trump attends a Presbyterian church doesn't make him Christian, it makes him a wolf in sheep's clothing. Trump worships only two things: Himself, and the ancient Greek god Plutus.
I hate it when someone who seems to always go against Jesus' teachings claims to be a Christian.
That goes for all the Republicans, with the possible exception of Carson and perhaps Rubio. Actually I have my doubts about almost all politicians. You know what Christ said about lawyers and the rich, which almost all of the Senators, Congresspeople, Governors, and President.
The optimal answer is for politics to avoid setting itself in conflict with faith, and there are reasonable compromises to achieve this.
Agreed. Remember the three in the furnace who were to be burned alive for refusing to follow the law and bow to the idol. I'm not Hindu, but I would be aghast if they passed a law making it mandatory to eat beef every Saturday.
As to the unicode, that's slashdot's fuckup.
You are pants are on fire?
IMO any of the three Democrats would be a better President than any of the Republicans, although there are two or three Republicans that might not fuck up America too badly.
Perhaps the conspiracy was cooked up by her supporters? The insurance companies are the major reason health care is so expensive and ineffective here.
I'm disgusted by the Republican candidates' cowardice and heartlessness when it comes to refugees, and the fact that none have served in the military but are all for going to war. Back in the Vietnam war days those sorts were called "chicken hawks", and you'll find few veterans who can stomach them.
Unless you're rich and white you'd be a fool to vote for any of them.
The Republican situation is hard to call - the lead has changed hands a few times now.
I've been following the republican nomination thing with great interest for several months now, mostly as an exercise in insight and analysis.
Surprisingly, the republican lead has *not* changed hands a few times, and depending on your definition of "lead" it hasn't changed hands at all. Carson pulled ahead of Trump in one poll one time, but in the overall average and in the national polls he's consistently been in the lead, for the last 6 months.
Look at the link in the last paragraph, and look at the right-hand column and count the number of times it reads "Trump".
This informative graphic from RealClearPolitics shows the overview situation.
But if this is true, then why was the MSM hyping "Carson pulls ahead of Trump" all the time?
As an exercise to the readership, can you identify the two reasons?
Comparing news reports with actual data has been an eye-opening experience. There's really a lot of shenanigans going on in this election. Applying Bayesian priors of "of all reasons causing *this*, choose the most likely" paints a surprising, infuriating, and depressing picture of American politics.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
That's the best sig I've seen in quite awhile.
Yes, the marketing campaign is flawless. My next car will be a Tesla, and my decision is based only on the articles published here on
I'm also planning on getting a Tesla as my next vehicle.
It's largely because of context. I *hate* how my dealership inserts itself between me an my purchase and tries to siphon off money for itself. I went through the trouble of looking for the *same* model and make of my previous purchase between two dealers - and got two "rock bottom" prices that were $1000 different. I know they were "rock bottom" prices, because the dealership told me so.
There's also the reliability context. GM has a problem with its ignition switches, denies the problem for a decade, and once a hundred deaths occur fixes the issue without telling anyone, and backdates the paperwork in an attempt to hide the issue.
For the longest time I couldn't rationalize Tesla stock analysis in the financial news. It's almost as if the analysts were looking at Tesla as a black box company: they make some product, have some capitalization, have some profit/loss, and it's a good/bad buy.
As near as I can figure, the financial analysts have an algorithm that actually looks at Tesla as a black box company and makes an heuristic estimate of whether it's a good buy or not. Periodically, an analyst chooses Tesla for review and then rationalizes the heuristic output based on whatever news has recently happened.
(I think that's how all financial analysis is done, actually. It's always "markets are *up* because of $X, markets are *down* following $Y", and so on. It makes the reader think that market fluctuations are caused by these newsworthy events.)
No one in the financial news seems to clue in that the company is building a battery factory, or that the cars had (at the time) the highest rating on Consumer Reports, or that they own a nationwide chain of chargers (and are building more), or even that they are currently selling electric vehicles.
Nope - none of that matters. Porsche plans to make an electric vehicle, and Tesla's stock tanks.
Apparently, in the financial markets context doesn't matter.
But if you look at the context, Tesla is the best product on the market.
I haven't been to slashdot lately, mainly reading journals, but the last three times I seem to have mod points.