October 18, 2010 at 1:33 pm
CirquedeSQLeil (10/18/2010)
Brandie Tarvin (10/18/2010)
The Dixie Flatline (10/18/2010)
I once heard two brothers argue (inconclusively) about whether or not black and white were colors. Opinions anyone?How about scientific fact?
Color is just the refraction of a certain light frequency. The sky is not blue. It just refuses to absorb certain parts of the blue spectrum. Hence we see it as blue.
Taking that into account, Black is the absence of color or the refraction of all colors, and White absorbs all colors, with none refracted outward for the naked eye to pick up.
Learned that in my theatre lighting class, I did. College is a wonderful thing. @=)
What a way to ruin a good argument - with science - geez. 😀
SHE BLINDED ME !!!
__________________________________________________
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. -- Friedrich Schiller
Stop, children, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down. -- Stephen Stills
October 18, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (10/18/2010)
CirquedeSQLeil (10/18/2010)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (10/18/2010)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (10/18/2010)
I think most trees are brown on the outside with a topcoat (needles or leaves) that may or may not be green.
Tell that to any kid. They all drawn a brown trunk, topped with green. Ask them what color a tree is and you'll get "green" back.
So are we saying that politicians and political activists are on the same level as a kid? 😀
maturity level
Awfully unfair to your kids
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
October 18, 2010 at 1:45 pm
GilaMonster (10/18/2010)
Craig Farrell (10/18/2010)
To go back to our earlier discussion on bad drivers in random places, apparently hit'n'runs are universal.I nearly got side-swiped into a concrete barrier this morning, but that happens about once a fortnight, so not really worth mentioning. Prevailing through here (especially among drivers of expensive cars and minibus taxis) is that if they are pulling into your lane and you are in the way, it's your problem to get out of the way.
Love the new sig line...
When did you move to New Jersey? If their front wheel is ahead of yours, they're coming over.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
October 18, 2010 at 2:24 pm
The drivers here don't seem to tend towards car-on-car merging, but they do follow the universal law of tailgaiting: The faster the traffic, the closer you're supposed to be to the car ahead of you, so nobody can "take your spot". But I've seen that pretty much everywhere I've lived.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
October 18, 2010 at 2:53 pm
jcrawf02 (10/18/2010)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (10/18/2010)
CirquedeSQLeil (10/18/2010)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (10/18/2010)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (10/18/2010)
I think most trees are brown on the outside with a topcoat (needles or leaves) that may or may not be green.
Tell that to any kid. They all drawn a brown trunk, topped with green. Ask them what color a tree is and you'll get "green" back.
So are we saying that politicians and political activists are on the same level as a kid? 😀
maturity level
Awfully unfair to your kids
Yeah, kids are more intelligent. I would liken it more to pond scum. But that might be insulting to the pond scum.
-- Kit
October 18, 2010 at 3:40 pm
The Dixie Flatline (10/18/2010)
CirquedeSQLeil (10/18/2010)
Brandie Tarvin (10/18/2010)
The Dixie Flatline (10/18/2010)
I once heard two brothers argue (inconclusively) about whether or not black and white were colors. Opinions anyone?How about scientific fact?
Color is just the refraction of a certain light frequency. The sky is not blue. It just refuses to absorb certain parts of the blue spectrum. Hence we see it as blue.
Taking that into account, Black is the absence of color or the refraction of all colors, and White absorbs all colors, with none refracted outward for the naked eye to pick up.
Learned that in my theatre lighting class, I did. College is a wonderful thing. @=)
What a way to ruin a good argument - with science - geez. 😀
SHE BLINDED ME !!!
You're showing your age with a comment like that. hmm, I guess I am too. 😎
For best practices on asking questions, please read the following article: Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help[/url]
October 18, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Eh? What did you just say, Alvin?
__________________________________________________
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. -- Friedrich Schiller
Stop, children, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down. -- Stephen Stills
October 18, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Brandie Tarvin (10/18/2010)
The Dixie Flatline (10/18/2010)
I once heard two brothers argue (inconclusively) about whether or not black and white were colors. Opinions anyone?How about scientific fact?
Color is just the refraction of a certain light frequency. The sky is not blue. It just refuses to absorb certain parts of the blue spectrum. Hence we see it as blue.
Taking that into account, Black is the absence of color or the refraction of all colors, and White absorbs all colors, with none refracted outward for the naked eye to pick up.
Learned that in my theatre lighting class, I did. College is a wonderful thing. @=)
Which is great and correct for light, but pigment is exactly the opposite. White is an absence of all pigment, black is a combination of all pigment.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
October 18, 2010 at 4:30 pm
GSquared (10/18/2010)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (10/18/2010)
Alvin Ramard (10/18/2010)
Jeff Moden (10/17/2010)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (10/14/2010)
The green value, if there is one, comes not from you getting ebooks, but from 1000s of people doing this. Less paper, less energy, less storage, not to mention less trucking, heating, cooling, etc. That being said, not sure this is the best way to remain green, especially as you have to charge it up.Doesn't bode well for lots of jobs, and I hope that some level of "bookstore" still remains in the future.
I wonder what the total carbon footprint of manufacturing such a device is? Add the carbon footprint of recycling it at end of life.
To get the true green value of ereaders, you also have to factor in how many books did not get printed. Good luck with that number.
Printed, shipped, stored (heated), shipped back, destroyed, trash/burning, fuel, etc. It's a slippery slope. Going down the path of arguing every bit of carbon footprint is a little silly, right now. We have not idea of current carbon footprints, so it doesn't make sense to just start arguing about new products that change the way we do things.
I wouldn't argue for e-readers on the portion of them being green. I go for the convenience.
Arguing about "carbon footprint" is baseless in any case. There is exactly zero scientific evidence that atmospheric CO2 does anything except stimulate plant growth.
The models that "prove" otherwise have all been debunked. They start out with an atmosphere with uniform density and infinite thickness, which happens to be impossible as well as incorrect. Take out those two data, and the "heating" disappears into the signal-to-noise ratio. Check out Freeman Dyson's data on that. It matters.
I'm sorry, but that's just not true.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
October 18, 2010 at 4:52 pm
The Dixie Flatline (10/18/2010)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I once heard two brothers argue (inconclusively) about whether or not black and white were colors. Opinions anyone?
Black is a colour in the same way that 0 is a number.
October 18, 2010 at 5:05 pm
The Dixie Flatline (10/18/2010)
Eh? What did you just say, Alvin?
Speak louder. My hearing is not what it used to be. 😛
For best practices on asking questions, please read the following article: Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help[/url]
October 18, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (10/18/2010)
Brandie Tarvin (10/18/2010)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (10/18/2010)
Aren't most trees green?Ahem. Trees are brown (some are white). The leaves (or needles) are green.
There's a difference. @=)
EDIT: Opps. Missed your rebuttal. Still stand by my statement, though.
This is a case where being right still means you're wrong.
That's back to front. The female is always right, even when she's wrong. Not the other way round.
Tom
October 18, 2010 at 6:44 pm
The Dixie Flatline (10/18/2010)
I once heard two brothers argue (inconclusively) about whether or not black and white were colors. Opinions anyone?
The right way to get a safe answer is to ask your wife, or if you don't have one of those, ask your sister, or your mother, or your girlfriend, or your sister in law, or your best friends girlfriend. If you don't have any of those you are not entitled to know the answer.
Tom
October 18, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Stefan Krzywicki (10/18/2010)
GSquared (10/18/2010)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (10/18/2010)
Alvin Ramard (10/18/2010)
Jeff Moden (10/17/2010)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (10/14/2010)
The green value, if there is one, comes not from you getting ebooks, but from 1000s of people doing this. Less paper, less energy, less storage, not to mention less trucking, heating, cooling, etc. That being said, not sure this is the best way to remain green, especially as you have to charge it up.Doesn't bode well for lots of jobs, and I hope that some level of "bookstore" still remains in the future.
I wonder what the total carbon footprint of manufacturing such a device is? Add the carbon footprint of recycling it at end of life.
To get the true green value of ereaders, you also have to factor in how many books did not get printed. Good luck with that number.
Printed, shipped, stored (heated), shipped back, destroyed, trash/burning, fuel, etc. It's a slippery slope. Going down the path of arguing every bit of carbon footprint is a little silly, right now. We have not idea of current carbon footprints, so it doesn't make sense to just start arguing about new products that change the way we do things.
I wouldn't argue for e-readers on the portion of them being green. I go for the convenience.
Arguing about "carbon footprint" is baseless in any case. There is exactly zero scientific evidence that atmospheric CO2 does anything except stimulate plant growth.
The models that "prove" otherwise have all been debunked. They start out with an atmosphere with uniform density and infinite thickness, which happens to be impossible as well as incorrect. Take out those two data, and the "heating" disappears into the signal-to-noise ratio. Check out Freeman Dyson's data on that. It matters.
I'm sorry, but that's just not true.
Easy to say your wrong, but now support your position.
As for me, the verdict isn't in. The problem I see is that this issue has become too politized that the scientific community finds itself having to pick sides insteading of standing up and saying we don't enough to really say one way or the other.
October 18, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Lynn Pettis (10/18/2010)
Stefan Krzywicki (10/18/2010)
GSquared (10/18/2010)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (10/18/2010)
Alvin Ramard (10/18/2010)
Jeff Moden (10/17/2010)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (10/14/2010)
The green value, if there is one, comes not from you getting ebooks, but from 1000s of people doing this. Less paper, less energy, less storage, not to mention less trucking, heating, cooling, etc. That being said, not sure this is the best way to remain green, especially as you have to charge it up.Doesn't bode well for lots of jobs, and I hope that some level of "bookstore" still remains in the future.
I wonder what the total carbon footprint of manufacturing such a device is? Add the carbon footprint of recycling it at end of life.
To get the true green value of ereaders, you also have to factor in how many books did not get printed. Good luck with that number.
Printed, shipped, stored (heated), shipped back, destroyed, trash/burning, fuel, etc. It's a slippery slope. Going down the path of arguing every bit of carbon footprint is a little silly, right now. We have not idea of current carbon footprints, so it doesn't make sense to just start arguing about new products that change the way we do things.
I wouldn't argue for e-readers on the portion of them being green. I go for the convenience.
Arguing about "carbon footprint" is baseless in any case. There is exactly zero scientific evidence that atmospheric CO2 does anything except stimulate plant growth.
The models that "prove" otherwise have all been debunked. They start out with an atmosphere with uniform density and infinite thickness, which happens to be impossible as well as incorrect. Take out those two data, and the "heating" disappears into the signal-to-noise ratio. Check out Freeman Dyson's data on that. It matters.
I'm sorry, but that's just not true.
Easy to say your wrong, but now support your position.
As for me, the verdict isn't in. The problem I see is that this issue has become too politized that the scientific community finds itself having to pick sides insteading of standing up and saying we don't enough to really say one way or the other.
You know, I'm not going to. I don't want to get into political arguments here. I shouldn't have said anything at all, but I'm not feeling well and I responded when I shouldn't. I want this to be a forum where I can banter with other SQL Server professionals in a friendly manner and I'm going to stay out of any political anything. I'd appreciate it if other people would as well, you can always start another thread to go on about this stuff.
If I'm wrong or out of line for suggesting that as well, that's unfortunate.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
Viewing 15 posts - 20,581 through 20,595 (of 66,712 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply