Yeah, we should have had a few more supernovas to harvest from. But still it's nice to know that we have materials that in principle allow to make an incandescent lamp that is an energy saver
did anyone else here gag when reading in the post that incandescent bulbs are 10% efficient?
I did. now, if they ever manage to make (cheap) filaments from something like Tantalum-Hafnium-Carbide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantalum_hafnium_carbide they will be efficient, maybe even at energy-saver-numbers
Knowledgeable sources claim that scientific progress should go 'Boink' actually.
This is just COINTELPRO updated for the age of social media.
Interesting comparison. I recall Chomsky saying that Watergate is often referred to as the the good old days when there was serious hardhitting journalism, but those were also the days when COINTELPRO was uncovered and nobody cared.
That would go too far.
Sure there will be such cases, but mostly the conflict is between old style prejudices that date from a time when things weren't as public and there weren't as many opportunities for moral outrage , with a modern time that offers a flood of information that makes your private thoughts suddenly a lot more public.
A more realist reaction would be to be a lot more tolerant towards inappropriate thoughts.
I'd still drink that stuff before I drank american beer.
Any american beer? The most recent number I know is there are over 2700 breweries.
That's very interesting. How should I interpret this averaging? Does God have one ball and one tit?
That is nicely put and concise. I would add that (my guess) belief systems have a major impact both on psychopaths and non-psychopaths. And I don't know if psychopaths may be more amenable to do very ugly things than non-psychopaths.
A belief system of the type "The world is a jungle and you have to be ruthless and stop at nothing" can have very ugly effects at times. Likewise 'a leader has to have a big picture vision and should do what it takes to achieve it and not be afraid to break a few eggs on the way'.
maybe psychopaths are not as one-dimensional as you think.
And will the dispenser shove the car forward by rotating this large corkscrew device after which the car plummets down from large height into the tray?
I haven't followed what he's been up to for a very long while, but I do recall he had a rather idi osyncratic opinion on what made humour. He believed for something to be funny it had to be awkward, uncomfortable, embarassing, uncomfortable. And you can see there was a lot of that in Fawlty Towers and it worked.
But for me it was enough. I don't want to experience large doses of uncomfortable feelings so he lost me.
So he's not just a bitter old man - maybe somewhat I don't know - but he thinks that is the essence of humour. And it isn't.
Overall, I'm fairly ambivalent on the issue.blockquote> Well I have a concrete example.
My driving style varies: on the one hand I drive fairly defensively and try not to upset other people around me , and I think I'm reasonably good at it, but on the other hand I pass through some quiet open places where sometimes it's just me, the car and the road. There's threshold braking and hard turning involved(no hard acceleration or high speeds with this car) and lots of understeer. I think it's a low risk thing.
I suspect a good racing instructor would see on the graphs(they do that all the time) that they're tidy and I'm in control, and that my general driving is safe, be it slightly too fast, but with insurance and police the data would likely be used against me. Well, if they would consider it worth it of course.
With the police it's a principle thing: they're not just interested in applying the rules where they make a difference, just everywhere. Most speeding tickets are to be harvested in places where people use sound judgement to decide safe speeds are higher than allowed speeds. If the police get your data they can harvest all those places.
If they're good, they're going to identify frequent high-G jerking when she looks up and realizes she's in another lane.
That would be a third derivative. The change in accelleration. The part that upsets the car.
In practice they would look for correlations. It may well be they end up using calculated numbers they don't really understand but that they can correllate well with risks.
You know who drives like that? All those awful oblivious drivers who everyone else is dodging. And the people doing the dodging look like maniacs.
You could use a course in defensive driving. Driving smooth is a good rule. It involves being predictable for those around you and being prepared for whatever is going on around you.
If you're dodging a lot you're not driving right.It's the oblivious drivers who do the dodging. And really, smooth isn't slow.