Those don't look like actual classification markings, which are required to appear at both the top and bottom of pages. It seems more likely that those are some internal Democratic party markings. Also the fact that the documents seem to be talking about the first 100 days in the future tense would point to them being planning documents produced by people in the party.
This whole line of argument presupposes that there is some sort of magic ratio of nutrients for each person and that if they don't hit exactly those numbers they will suffer some vague disastrous consequences (coughing a lot from eating too much pizza and mac-and-cheese?).
Our metabolisms are way more adaptable than that. Generally if you're even in the right ballpark you are fine. There's clearly no exact optimal diet (even at an individualized level). If it were this way people would be keeling over left and right.
Modeling it as a parallel plate capacitor with a mica dielectric is basically totally ignoring the part about it being a supercapacitor. He may as well have been seeing if it would be feasible to get to the moon using a wood fired rocket.
Most supercaps are rated for very low voltages (this one is only rated for 2.4V), as dictated by the breakdown voltages of the dielectric and its manufacturing tolerances. A 6V-rated 1200F supercap made from the same materials will be considerably larger. Further, most electrical engineers will enforce a factor of safety beyond the manufacturing tolerances . This is doubly true for capacitors, since dielectric failure on high energy caps can be somewhat catastrophic (read: explosive).
Why would you need 6v for a phone? I got feeling this was pulled out of his ass. Everything works on sub 2V there if I am not gravely wrong (not sure for the light source for the display)
You don't. I'd bet most of the voltage rails on a modern phone are 1.8V and 3.3V. Then the display backlight usually uses a constant-current regulator, and you'll probably have some oddball low voltages for the CPU core and other various things. Given Ohm's law you can generate all that using DC-to-DC converters.
High efficiency DC/DC converters are now commonplace. Energy density (J/m^3 and J/kg) and internal resistance are the really important quantities in energy storage capacitors.
I wrote some code a little while ago to do something like this (although I wasn't trying to produce Victory Boogie Woogie in particular)[1]. It generates samples from a probability distribution over kd-trees called the Mondrian Process [2]
However the driver lives in New Jersey, where only 10% of the power comes from coal (as of 2005). There, I find that it is only 0.713 lbs of CO2 per kwh, so he'd only be releasing about 1.5 tons of CO2.
It looks like there isn't any state where driving an electric actually produces more CO2 than driving a gas car. And that's before you include the CO2 generated from refining oil (which requires a fair amount of electricity).
That's a great map except they fail to state the MPG of the "Gas Car" they are comparing too. Given the numbers in that, I'd be willing to bet a Prius outperforms the Electric in some of the worst states.
Edit: Assumption is stated as 22mpg at the bottom of the page.
That's fair if you are comparing the Model S to a similar luxury car. It also means the Prius wins in a lot of states.
> It also means the Prius wins in a lot of states.
That's true. But I think Tesla is trying to sell the Model S to people who would otherwise buy a similar luxury car. There are a not-insignificant number of people in the world who just hate the Prius because it sacrifices handling, performance, and interior finish for the sake of fuel-efficiency. If Tesla builds and sells a car that those people like, isn't it still a net win? People who like hybrid Priuses can still buy them.
Is it just me or does $3000 seem like a really cheap price for the Dallas Mavericks to reach 1M+ fans? Would it make any significant difference to their marketing budget if the price were cut to $1000 or doubled to $6000?
Think of when you go to an NBA game and they give out some sort of "freebie". I would imagine those game "freebies" cost much more than $3000, and regardless of that, with Facebook you are potentially reaching the 1M+ fans where as those game "freebies" might only be handed out to a measly 5K. It seems like a no-brainer to use Facebook to reach 1M+ fans at that price, vs what they traditionally pay for other forms of marketing.
Also, you could easily be selective on what sort of post validates for a $3K (post) promotion. Not all posts are worth promoting to every one of your fans, doing so would just weaken the brand image (in my eyes).
The problem is that you got that reach before for free. It's the change that's upset people. If Twitter started charging companies for tweeting there would be a similar backlash.
People feel betrayed by a company desperate for new revenue.
Yeah, very true. That makes much more sense why people are upset. However, I still think they should just take a step back and just look at the cost of more "traditional" alternatives that, what it seems like, are never even questioned for their price to value ratio. An extreme example would be how the Ford Explorer launch on Facebook generated more traffic than a Super Bowl ad [1].
What was the "acquisition cost" of those 1M+ Facebook fans (likes)? Ostensibly, this is "double dipping" on the part of Facebook from the perspective of businesses and brands who've been marketing their FB presence in aims of adding subscribers they can reach.
Regardless of what they paid, its already been spent and its likely that Facebook did not see much of that anyway. Even if they were to move to another social network out of spite they'd still have to pay that acquisition cost again and more since that network will be much smaller making it harder to drive more likes/follows/whatevers there.
One of the complaints in the article is that it's billed per message. $3000 is a bit much for some low level employee in the social media department to sign off while pushing ads.
I guess any kind of prepaid arrangement (with some reasonable quotas, or upfront costs + small price per post) would be more manageable.
I'm not really sure that this explains it at all. For one, there are sites similar to isitruby19.com - such as onpython3yet.com. What seems more likely to me is that python 3 was not as compelling of an upgrade until recently since a lot of stuff was back ported to 2.7. I don't know as much about ruby 1.9, but it is also seems possible that python 3 was simply more disruptive of a change.
