Isn't the ISS orbit better for ending up in a lunar polar orbit? Considering all the talk about bases involves setting up at one of the poles, due to steady sunlight and shadowed craters containing water, a polar orbit sounds like a good idea.
We could have kept turning out Saturn V's assembly-line style and even without incorporating all the improvements we could have made over the last 40 years, we'd still be ahead of where we are now, for less money.
And Saturn IB's, the Saturn V is overkill for many missions.
Actually copyright law was basically written 300 years ago, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne , and America basically just copied it (they did add maps and charts, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne#Influence_on_early_US_copyright_law ) The Statute of Anne is interesting as the version that the book sellers wrote and the House of Commons passed was terrible, with no limit to the term of copyright. It was the unelected House of Lords who forced copyright to be much more reasonable with the 14+14 years limitation. Having an unelected part of the legislature does have advantages like not having to raise funds for reelection.
No, businesses can have other reasons to exist. My business exists to give me employment and tax deductions. The business is 15 years old and has never made a profit. At that it hasn't kept me fully employed but it has given me as good as a salary as anything else I can think of doing and a lot of independence.
The Wikipedia article agrees with me, the second paragraph,
Photosynthesis was producing oxygen both before and after the GOE. The difference was that before the GOE, organic matter and dissolved iron chemically captured any free oxygen. The GOE was the point when these minerals became saturated and could not capture any more oxygen. The excess free oxygen started to accumulate in the atmosphere.
Note that oxygen was being produced before the GOE. At that it says that the first oxygen producing organism may have appeared 3500 million years ago, which is about 1100 million years before the GOE. The discussion is about how quick Earth originating lifeforms could alter the Martian atmosphere. Based on the Earths history it is not instant because first all the oxygen sinks have to saturated. Also re the 2000 years oxygen
Without a draw-down, oxygen could accumulate very rapidly: for example, at today's rates of photosynthesis (which are admittedly much greater than those in the plant-free Precambrian), modern atmospheric O2 levels could be produced in around 2,000 years.[4]
Note that is at today's rate of photosynthesis. Personally my home is surrounded by 100 ft tall oxygen producers with lots more on the ground.
It took a lot longer to first oxygenate the Earth. Much oxygen was tied up in things like iron before there was any free in the atmosphere. IIRC it was millions of years. I think that you're remembering that it only takes 2000 years to replace the oxygen in the atmosphere now that all the oxygen sinks are full.
What is legal is making copies for personal use. This was due to the recording industry demanding to be paid a levy on sales of blank media (cassette tapes and blank CDs. No DVDrs then) so a law was passed that included personal copying. Courts have extended this to downloading music, eg if I make my shared folder of music available, you can make personal copies of it. I can't send you a copy though, you have to pull it. When traveling I guess you're under the jurisdiction of whatever country you travel to.
For myself and I guess most of us, it is not so much the creationists. It's the anti-science young-earthers who seem to be the most vocal. Unluckily being the most vocal and calling themselves creationists they have coloured all the creationists with their brush and now when I hear someone calling themselves a creationist I think anti-science.
Violent crime is dropping in most western countries, whether people are armed or not. This correlates to most western countries populations aging. Less stupid young males, less violence.
Corporate power is, by nature, less powerful than a tyrannical, omnipotent state. Without a powerful state to back it up, a corporation -has- no power not given to it by its citizens, and citizens can reduce the power of a corporation in a blink of an eye compared to power of a government.
But a corporation can be more powerful than a weak state.
A corporation requires money and resources, without that it dies. In a free market, no one is forced to pay for anything they don't want, this is in sharp contrast with a government where you -have- to pay for things, even if you don't want them. For example, if you disagree with Wal-Mart's hiring practices, you don't have to shop there, they don't get any of your money or support. On the other hand, if you oppose the war in Iraq, you still have to pay for the bullets or else go to prison.
If a large enough group of people refuse to pay for the bullets the government has little choice but to except that. The problem is when the majority is OK with buying bullets to kill. Without government strength Wal-Mart will push all competitors out of business, either by underselling them or bringing in a company such as the Pinkerton detective agency (which had more detectives then the US regular army at one point) to bully the competition into folding. At that point your choices are to starve or shop at Wal-Mart. Also to sell your goods to Wal-Mart at the price they set. History has shown that is exactly what corporations do with a weak government.
Given a free enough market, corporations won't become tyrannical because of the fact that the market balances itself out. Even the "worst" monopoly was broken up in essence by market forces (the government breakup of Standard Oil was not needed because it no longer was even close to a monopoly at the time of its breakup). Anytime you see a monopoly, it either A) Is government imposed (postal service, utilities, etc), B) No need for competition (as in, if no one thought hamburgers would be profitable and therefore McDonalds was the only store selling hamburgers) or C) Is very temporary.
A corporation will do everything it can to do away with a free market. Whether hiring their own private army or subverting the government. They may only have a temporary monopoly but when it lasts generations it is still too long.
The problem is, our government is not free enough, when boiled down to a government whos only job is to protect against fraud and force both corporations and consumers win. Consumers win because they are free to screw the corporations, for example, no DMCA and most likely no (or very, very limited) copyright. Corporations win because they are free to innovate and expand beyond government constraints artificially limiting them.
History shows otherwise. Without a strong government then corporations are free to do whatever it takes to become a monopoly and abuse people.
Consumers also have more choice, imagine if all the oil in the world was monopolized and there was incredibly high prices, a few things would have happened, either A) we'd find new sources of oil or more likely B) We'd develop things that didn't need oil thus pushing oil prices down further leading to a loss of that monopoly.
Why would corporations allow that?
Corporations also can provide infrastructure, if Company X needs to have an airport near Nowheresville, they will build an airport, because they can't utilize all of it 24/7, they rent it out to private airlines, therefore, suddenly Nowheresville has an airport and gets more trade without government waste.
No the Corporation will not borrow the large amount of money to build an airport, they'll just locate at Somewheresville as it is more cost effective.
I guarantee making voting more complicated is not the answer. You need
You must live somewhere where the roads are pretty straight. Around here the sides of the roads are littered with crosses where someone was going to fast to make a corner and died. On windy mountainous roads speed definitely kills.
I'm in Canada and there has been KKK cross burnings down the road from me. They only become hate speech when they're outside some black folks house as an example. Basically what is illegal is promoting violence through hate.
Odds are that he won't get a jury trial. I haven't read the fine article but in Canada we only have the right to a jury trial for crimes where the maximum sentence is over 5 years. It's in the Charter.
The difference is that Microsoft had a history of encouraging piracy as long as it was their software being pirated. I don't think Apple has ever encouraged people to copy their software to gain market share. IIRC they were trying to stop all competitors including Windows with their court case. Just unluckily the judge decided that Microsoft had a license to Apples IP based on the deal to port Office to the Mac.
According to the Constitution of the United States of America, having laws that classify stuff is illegal to begin with. See the first amendment which hasn't been amended to allow congress to pass laws stifling free speech. Also note that it would be easy to get an amendment passed allowing classifying sensitive information.
If you read a little closer it says (at least mine do) can not be resold without a cover. This may be due to coverless books usually being considered destroyed in the publishing industry so unauthourized.
In practice the Monarch does not have the power to dissolve parliament whenever she feels like it and if she tried, unless she had the overwhelming support of the people, she'd be sent packing really quick. Same as if she started making decrees that parliament didn't tell her to make. And England was never a republic, they had one monarch who called himself Lord-Protector after usurping the throne and his son succeeded him like most monarchs. Note that he was so hated that the people cheered like hell when Charles II excepted the peoples invitation to take the crown. He was a fucking puritan. with all that suggests. You could be thrown in jail for observing Christmas and you better not do anything fun. He was probably the last total tyrant to rule England. Not being American I get a slightly different view point on that part of history. I know that a lot of the anger was directed at parliament (as it should have been) and the King was pissed off that some of his subjects were revolting to have the right to trample all over other of his subjects, whether French Catholics (god that upset some Americans, Catholics having rights) or native Americans. The King swore to uphold the law as passed by parliament and there hadn't been a case of a monarch refusing to give their assent in 70 odd years at the time of the American revolution and in that case it was on the advice of the government, not her idea at all. And any decrees that George III issued were on the advice of the government.
Cromwell was a religious dictator who called himself Lord-Protector rather then King but he was King in all but name, even had his son succeed him. Whether he was better then Charles I is a matter of opinion, mostly depending on which religion you belonged to at the time. Charles was Catholic and Cromwell was puritan. Personally the puritans scare the hell out of me. And judging by how quick England went back to having a Catholic King, a lot of people felt the same.
You're thinking of when they executed the King in the mid-1600's (executed in 1649) and replaced him with a Lord-Protector, a King in all but name. True that parliament was in charge in theory but their army kept the opposition party out. I guess you could call it a republic but puritan dictatorship would be more accurate. In the late 1600's was the glorious revolution where parliament kicked out the current King (James II) and replaced him with a Dutch man and his Wife, the daughter of the King. This was when Parliament became supreme, the coronation oath was changed to one where the monarch swore to upheld the laws of parliament and they even passed a bill of rights in 1689. Since then the monarchy has has very little actual power. This is why it is always funny when Americans talk about George III being a tyrant, it was Parliament that created the laws by then.
So you are saying that the people actually driving their vehicles are not cognizant enough to determine their own speed, and let them pay the consequences if they go to fast. Instead we should rely on some super smart government engineers to tell us how fast we can go. These super engineers are just like mommy and daddy and always looking out for your best interest, when you are not smart enough.
As often as not it is other people paying the consequences. Why should my wife lose her husband because you're to childish to be cognizant of your speed on public roads. I have more trust in engineers who aren't taking shortcuts to make more profit then the average young driver. I've witnessed too much to except that all people will naturally drive sanely.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't the ISS orbit better for ending up in a lunar polar orbit? Considering all the talk about bases involves setting up at one of the poles, due to steady sunlight and shadowed craters containing water, a polar orbit sounds like a good idea.
There's a big difference between soft landing a capsule returning from the Moon and a capsule/shuttle returning from LEO.
We could have kept turning out Saturn V's assembly-line style and even without incorporating all the improvements we could have made over the last 40 years, we'd still be ahead of where we are now, for less money.
And Saturn IB's, the Saturn V is overkill for many missions.
Gates could also lie. He'd already sold the basic interpreter before he wrote it (to who ever it was built the Altair) as already written.
It's very nice in the summer but gets depressing in the winter. Being a Canadian rain forest it is pretty dark, wet and cold at the end of the year.
Actually copyright law was basically written 300 years ago, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne , and America basically just copied it (they did add maps and charts, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne#Influence_on_early_US_copyright_law )
The Statute of Anne is interesting as the version that the book sellers wrote and the House of Commons passed was terrible, with no limit to the term of copyright.
It was the unelected House of Lords who forced copyright to be much more reasonable with the 14+14 years limitation. Having an unelected part of the legislature does have advantages like not having to raise funds for reelection.
No, businesses can have other reasons to exist. My business exists to give me employment and tax deductions. The business is 15 years old and has never made a profit. At that it hasn't kept me fully employed but it has given me as good as a salary as anything else I can think of doing and a lot of independence.
The Wikipedia article agrees with me, the second paragraph,
Photosynthesis was producing oxygen both before and after the GOE. The difference was that before the GOE, organic matter and dissolved iron chemically captured any free oxygen. The GOE was the point when these minerals became saturated and could not capture any more oxygen. The excess free oxygen started to accumulate in the atmosphere.
Note that oxygen was being produced before the GOE. At that it says that the first oxygen producing organism may have appeared 3500 million years ago, which is about 1100 million years before the GOE.
The discussion is about how quick Earth originating lifeforms could alter the Martian atmosphere. Based on the Earths history it is not instant because first all the oxygen sinks have to saturated.
Also re the 2000 years oxygen
Without a draw-down, oxygen could accumulate very rapidly: for example, at today's rates of photosynthesis (which are admittedly much greater than those in the plant-free Precambrian), modern atmospheric O2 levels could be produced in around 2,000 years.[4]
Note that is at today's rate of photosynthesis. Personally my home is surrounded by 100 ft tall oxygen producers with lots more on the ground.
It took a lot longer to first oxygenate the Earth. Much oxygen was tied up in things like iron before there was any free in the atmosphere. IIRC it was millions of years.
I think that you're remembering that it only takes 2000 years to replace the oxygen in the atmosphere now that all the oxygen sinks are full.
What is legal is making copies for personal use. This was due to the recording industry demanding to be paid a levy on sales of blank media (cassette tapes and blank CDs. No DVDrs then) so a law was passed that included personal copying. Courts have extended this to downloading music, eg if I make my shared folder of music available, you can make personal copies of it. I can't send you a copy though, you have to pull it.
When traveling I guess you're under the jurisdiction of whatever country you travel to.
For myself and I guess most of us, it is not so much the creationists. It's the anti-science young-earthers who seem to be the most vocal.
Unluckily being the most vocal and calling themselves creationists they have coloured all the creationists with their brush and now when I hear someone calling themselves a creationist I think anti-science.
Violent crime is dropping in most western countries, whether people are armed or not. This correlates to most western countries populations aging. Less stupid young males, less violence.
Corporate power is, by nature, less powerful than a tyrannical, omnipotent state. Without a powerful state to back it up, a corporation -has- no power not given to it by its citizens, and citizens can reduce the power of a corporation in a blink of an eye compared to power of a government.
But a corporation can be more powerful than a weak state.
A corporation requires money and resources, without that it dies. In a free market, no one is forced to pay for anything they don't want, this is in sharp contrast with a government where you -have- to pay for things, even if you don't want them. For example, if you disagree with Wal-Mart's hiring practices, you don't have to shop there, they don't get any of your money or support. On the other hand, if you oppose the war in Iraq, you still have to pay for the bullets or else go to prison.
If a large enough group of people refuse to pay for the bullets the government has little choice but to except that. The problem is when the majority is OK with buying bullets to kill.
Without government strength Wal-Mart will push all competitors out of business, either by underselling them or bringing in a company such as the Pinkerton detective agency (which had more detectives then the US regular army at one point) to bully the competition into folding. At that point your choices are to starve or shop at Wal-Mart. Also to sell your goods to Wal-Mart at the price they set.
History has shown that is exactly what corporations do with a weak government.
Given a free enough market, corporations won't become tyrannical because of the fact that the market balances itself out. Even the "worst" monopoly was broken up in essence by market forces (the government breakup of Standard Oil was not needed because it no longer was even close to a monopoly at the time of its breakup). Anytime you see a monopoly, it either A) Is government imposed (postal service, utilities, etc), B) No need for competition (as in, if no one thought hamburgers would be profitable and therefore McDonalds was the only store selling hamburgers) or C) Is very temporary.
A corporation will do everything it can to do away with a free market. Whether hiring their own private army or subverting the government.
They may only have a temporary monopoly but when it lasts generations it is still too long.
The problem is, our government is not free enough, when boiled down to a government whos only job is to protect against fraud and force both corporations and consumers win. Consumers win because they are free to screw the corporations, for example, no DMCA and most likely no (or very, very limited) copyright. Corporations win because they are free to innovate and expand beyond government constraints artificially limiting them.
History shows otherwise. Without a strong government then corporations are free to do whatever it takes to become a monopoly and abuse people.
Consumers also have more choice, imagine if all the oil in the world was monopolized and there was incredibly high prices, a few things would have happened, either A) we'd find new sources of oil or more likely B) We'd develop things that didn't need oil thus pushing oil prices down further leading to a loss of that monopoly.
Why would corporations allow that?
Corporations also can provide infrastructure, if Company X needs to have an airport near Nowheresville, they will build an airport, because they can't utilize all of it 24/7, they rent it out to private airlines, therefore, suddenly Nowheresville has an airport and gets more trade without government waste.
No the Corporation will not borrow the large amount of money to build an airport, they'll just locate at Somewheresville as it is more cost effective.
I guarantee making voting more complicated is not the answer. You need
We have those in BC as well. Usually the recommended speed is to low and the big problem is people who don't know the road and don't slow down enough.
You must live somewhere where the roads are pretty straight. Around here the sides of the roads are littered with crosses where someone was going to fast to make a corner and died.
On windy mountainous roads speed definitely kills.
I'm in Canada and there has been KKK cross burnings down the road from me. They only become hate speech when they're outside some black folks house as an example. Basically what is illegal is promoting violence through hate.
Thanks, I didn't realize that libel carried a 5 year maximum.
Odds are that he won't get a jury trial. I haven't read the fine article but in Canada we only have the right to a jury trial for crimes where the maximum sentence is over 5 years.
It's in the Charter.
The difference is that Microsoft had a history of encouraging piracy as long as it was their software being pirated.
I don't think Apple has ever encouraged people to copy their software to gain market share.
IIRC they were trying to stop all competitors including Windows with their court case. Just unluckily the judge decided that Microsoft had a license to Apples IP based on the deal to port Office to the Mac.
According to the Constitution of the United States of America, having laws that classify stuff is illegal to begin with. See the first amendment which hasn't been amended to allow congress to pass laws stifling free speech.
Also note that it would be easy to get an amendment passed allowing classifying sensitive information.
If you read a little closer it says (at least mine do) can not be resold without a cover. This may be due to coverless books usually being considered destroyed in the publishing industry so unauthourized.
In practice the Monarch does not have the power to dissolve parliament whenever she feels like it and if she tried, unless she had the overwhelming support of the people, she'd be sent packing really quick. Same as if she started making decrees that parliament didn't tell her to make.
And England was never a republic, they had one monarch who called himself Lord-Protector after usurping the throne and his son succeeded him like most monarchs. Note that he was so hated that the people cheered like hell when Charles II excepted the peoples invitation to take the crown.
He was a fucking puritan. with all that suggests. You could be thrown in jail for observing Christmas and you better not do anything fun. He was probably the last total tyrant to rule England.
Not being American I get a slightly different view point on that part of history. I know that a lot of the anger was directed at parliament (as it should have been) and the King was pissed off that some of his subjects were revolting to have the right to trample all over other of his subjects, whether French Catholics (god that upset some Americans, Catholics having rights) or native Americans.
The King swore to uphold the law as passed by parliament and there hadn't been a case of a monarch refusing to give their assent in 70 odd years at the time of the American revolution and in that case it was on the advice of the government, not her idea at all.
And any decrees that George III issued were on the advice of the government.
Cromwell was a religious dictator who called himself Lord-Protector rather then King but he was King in all but name, even had his son succeed him.
Whether he was better then Charles I is a matter of opinion, mostly depending on which religion you belonged to at the time. Charles was Catholic and Cromwell was puritan.
Personally the puritans scare the hell out of me. And judging by how quick England went back to having a Catholic King, a lot of people felt the same.
You're thinking of when they executed the King in the mid-1600's (executed in 1649) and replaced him with a Lord-Protector, a King in all but name. True that parliament was in charge in theory but their army kept the opposition party out. I guess you could call it a republic but puritan dictatorship would be more accurate.
In the late 1600's was the glorious revolution where parliament kicked out the current King (James II) and replaced him with a Dutch man and his Wife, the daughter of the King.
This was when Parliament became supreme, the coronation oath was changed to one where the monarch swore to upheld the laws of parliament and they even passed a bill of rights in 1689.
Since then the monarchy has has very little actual power.
This is why it is always funny when Americans talk about George III being a tyrant, it was Parliament that created the laws by then.
So you are saying that the people actually driving their vehicles are not cognizant enough to determine their own speed, and let them pay the consequences if they go to fast. Instead we should rely on some super smart government engineers to tell us how fast we can go. These super engineers are just like mommy and daddy and always looking out for your best interest, when you are not smart enough.
As often as not it is other people paying the consequences. Why should my wife lose her husband because you're to childish to be cognizant of your speed on public roads.
I have more trust in engineers who aren't taking shortcuts to make more profit then the average young driver. I've witnessed too much to except that all people will naturally drive sanely.