I think the first was Californium
I think the first was Californium
The original intent of the my comment was to look at how the election would have worked out counting the ballots that were cast in the election under the poll choices given. I understand that campaigns would have been run differently under different scenarios, but I was looking at it as more of a mind exercise to see how things would work out counting the ballots that were already cast.
The building's developer, Millennium Partners, insists the building is safe for occupancy and could withstand an earthquake.
In this context, I would guess "developer" is used similarly to "business development" which means sales. Personally, I would prefer an engineer to make a safety assessment rather than a developer in the assumed context, but I could be wrong about context. I didn't see Millennium Partners engineering firms on the first page of a Google search, though.
Maybe they mean safe in a context similar to "perfectly safe" from Zaphod Plays It Safe.
The question was more about who would have won with the given vote for each situation with the current votes, not who would have won if each system were in place. I know strategy would have been different in each scenario. I just wonder who would win in each choice based on the already cast ballots.
I agree, this isn't an IT-specific issue. PHBs frequently make executive decisions base on what is promoted in trade magazines, which is a bummer for the workers who have to follow policy influenced by a marketing major.
Probably will bankrupt every truck stop along major freeways costing another 200k jobs.
The trucks will still need to be fueled for the long trips, so fueling stops will still be needed, but the food, showers, and restaurants won't be needed as much.
Of course, depending upon technology level, a driver may be needed for the highway exit-fuel-onramp legs until the technology level is ready for the trucks to find fuel stops and refuel successfully.
I apologize for replying to myself, but I forgot to add:
I know Trump wins scenario 1, Clinton wins scenario 2, Trump wins scenario 3. It is the other scenarios that I don't know.
It would be interesting to know who would have won under each of the scenarios above. I wouldn't change my poll choice above even if it showed that the candidate I liked least would be favored by that method.
You must be new here.
I have tried to explain to you, but I can't understand energy output for type of coal for you, or its relevance. I give up.
You are missing the point. It is more efficient to burn some types of coal than others. I acknowledge that the plants are relatively inefficient. The "clean coal" argument is that if you are going to burn coal, burn anthracite rather than other types, such as lignite. Personally, if coal is going to be used as a fuel, I hope it is anthracite.
the only practical way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from coal is to get more energy out of each pound of coal
...the efficiency of typical coal plants has peaked at about 33 percent,
That still doesn't address the lignite/anthracite (fuel) difference, it addresses the plant (engine) difference.
So, burning lignite for power is the same as burning anthracite as far as emissions?
To clarify the (assumed) sarcasm. NOAA is the government agency that is responsible for the U.S. weather service, and maintaining climatological records. NOAA operates the weather satellites, NASA (or a soon to be contractor,) just puts them in orbit.
On a side note, NASA requests "good old fashion" weather balloon data when launching rockets.
A company is known by the men it keeps.