Slingshotting can add velocity (by stealing it from the planet it is passing) or even reduce velocity. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In orbital mechanics and aerospace engineering, a gravitational slingshot, gravity assist maneuver, or swing-by is the use of the relative movement (e.g. orbit around the Sun) and gravity of a planet or other astronomical object to alter the path and speed of a spacecraft, typically to save propellant and reduce expense. Gravity assistance can be used to accelerate a spacecraft, that is, to increase or decrease its speed or redirect its path. The "assist" is provided by the motion of the gravitating body as it pulls on the spacecraft.[1] The gravity assist maneuver was first used in 1959 when the Soviet probe Luna 3 photographed the far side of Earth's Moon, and it was used by interplanetary probes from Mariner 10 onwards, including the two Voyager probes' notable flybys of Jupiter and Saturn.
My DUI example was bad as actually I just wanted to show where the defense wants to delay the trial to get their defense in order. Charges wouldn't be laid until the tests come in.
As for Pickton, at the point where they searched and found personal possessions of missing people and charged him, they charged him due to having enough evidence (much word of mouth, including at least one woman who escaped him) to probably get a conviction. The more evidence, especially bodies, the better chance of a conviction for first degree murder instead of perhaps only a second degree conviction or worse. There was also a lot of families who wanted to know where their family members had gone and ended up being a long investigation into how the police fucked up to begin with by ignoring the prostitutes and native women who had been telling the cops about Pickton for too long. Anyways powers flickering here so time to shut down.
"I don't know what the limits should be but I do understand it takes time to gather and organize evidence."
True but that is or should be over before anyone is accused or arrested.
Ideally, but things often don't work like that. Real world extreme example. Pig farmer suspected of killing prostitutes. Cops search his property and find possessions of a couple of missing women, circumstantial evidence, but enough to lay charges and continue the search. Suspected that he used wood chipper and/or pigs to dispose of the bodies. Takes years to go over the 40 acres or so looking for bone fragments/DNA etc and prosecution keeps asking for more time to get evidence together, which they keep adding to. Trial starts on first 3 murder charges, takes a year (he's convicted) and then there is another year where Pickton can appeal. Meanwhile there is another 27 murder charges laid. While the other murder charges were stayed as once he was put away for a few life sentences, why bother, If he'd got off on the first charges there would have been more trials with years going by. So you have years of evidence gathering, then a possibility of a chain of trials and meanwhile the need to keep this nutcase of the streets.
"There's also the defenses right to take as long as needed to formulate a defense."
Yes, but how does that delay the start of trial? That is a delay that can occur during the trial after the prosecution has proven they even have enough evidence for the case to go to trial.
When does a trial start? Contrived example, suspect is accused of DUI causing death after having 2 drinks and having a pedestrian jump in front of his car. Cops get a warrant for his blood, takes months for test results to come back (saying.09 or.01 over the limit) so trial is delayed for that. Then the defendant exercising his right to make a defence by getting a Judge to order the government to give him one of the two blood samples that were taken during the search (and they better have taken two samples) for independent testing, which also takes months so at the start of the trial the defendant asks for a recess of a couple of months to get his samples tested. Trial is delayed.
"Up here, at least in theory, it is illegal to discriminate against convicted criminals who have served their time unless it has a direct bearing on the job. Peoples privacy rights are also important enough that just being arrested is not usually published and even having charges laid is often not broadcast too much though the court records are usually open to anyone who wants to look."
That is a more sane policy than we have in the US. In the US employers are free to discriminate against convicted criminals, period. Every position requires disclosure of past criminal offenses and failure to disclose is always grounds for termination. Background checks to discover and verify any past criminal record are pretty much standard process and there are a number of employment screening companies that employers utilize to check for criminal history, credit history, and verify employment history. It has gotten to the point where a gap in employment history or poor credit can also exclude someone from a decent job.
You might have been the manager of a major downtown city bank branch before but if you lost your job and took six months searching during which you missed a couple credit card payments you won't be one again. If during that time the cute young thing you encountered at the bar after a few drinks turns out to have been 17 you won't be anything but a fry cook on a sex offender registry for the rest of your life. By the time you are done with all the counseling they are going to put you through they'll even have you convinced you deserve it (happened to someone I knew).
Yea, the power of business and government down there seems insane. Up here, it takes a Judge to put you on the sex offenders list, at
If we are declaring too many people criminals to be able to give them a trial within a couple weeks we are obviously labeling too many things as criminal and need to start relaxing our laws.
While it is true that we're labeling too many things criminal. (We got into this mess up here partially due to a right wing government doing the tough on crime thing without financing it). For the crimes that most people consider serious and that should be crimes such as murder, it often takes more then a few weeks to get the evidence together. I don't know what the limits should be but I do understand it takes time to gather and organize evidence. It also depends on how you're spending your time waiting for trial. Being stuck in remand is much worse then having some travel restrictions There's also the defenses right to take as long as needed to formulate a defense. The right to a speedy trial does not negate the right to justice.
Especially considering that the moment we enter a guilty verdict (even a plea) that person's gainful employment prospect is effectively destroyed if it wasn't destroyed the moment we accused them.
A lot of that is cultural, including deciding which rights are more important. Up here, at least in theory, it is illegal to discriminate against convicted criminals who have served their time unless it has a direct bearing on the job. Peoples privacy rights are also important enough that just being arrested is not usually published and even having charges laid is often not broadcast too much though the court records are usually open to anyone who wants to look.
It's easy to tell the people who don't want abortions happening, they try to prevent them through education, making birth control available and empowering women to say no. Then we have the average right winger who really wants to dominate women, keep them ignorant, impregnate them as early as possible, throw a big guilt trip on them to make them go through with the pregnancy and then put them down for being a single mother. You're right, the repression of women will be compared to slavery, just not for the bullshit reasons that you give.
It's one of those subjective rights, like the right not to have cruel and unusual punishment or unreasonable searches. Up here the Canadian Supreme Court recently set new guidelines, 30 months for Federal, 18 months for Provincial. 5 to 4 decision with the minority voting it was too short. Murderers are being released as well as many others. The real problem is austerity where the government hasn't been hiring Judges. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politic...
Tidal forces are a secondary affect from gravity. The important part is the difference in gravitational pull between the center, the near side and the far side. On the Earth, considering the Moon, that difference is 6.8%, which is easily observable if you hang out at the ocean. Even though the Sun has 175 times the gravity effect on the Earth, due to its distance, the difference between the near and far sides is closer to 0.017% leading to much less tidal affects, about 44%. In other words, it is not only the amount of gravity but the gravity differential that causes tides. I'd think that a swing by of the Moon where the lowest elevation was 1 meter (1,700,000 or so meters from the center) would be noticeable on the 100 meter spaceship. Still wouldn't be much but objects in the ship would noticeably have a tendency to move to the ends of the ship.
The natives around here (Pacific NW) used to travel the few hundred miles into the interior by foot to trade and go to Hawaii to get laid. Somewhat dangerous but not expensive when living off the land (sea). Really the big dangers was other people and getting lost.
As I said, negligible but I'd think we have small sensitive scales that would measure the difference in weight between both ends of a 100 metre ship or just observe a 100 metre cigar shaped ship rotate so one end points at the planet it is swinging by. The calculations are basically the difference in 2 orbits a 100 metres apart.
There will be tidal affects, probably negligible in any swing by maneuvers that we're likely to do in the fore-see-able future but tidal affects are real
IF a gas pump was rigged like any of ISP meters then there will be big fines.
Ahh, more regulations that hurt small businesses and need to go away. Once gone, competition will keep the gas stations honest and by not having to worry about stupid regulations like needing to check the accuracy of their gas pumps, those poor oil companies might finally be able to turn a profit. Small businesses like Exxon need all the help they can get. While about it, we can remove some of those other business killing regulations such as having to install non-leaky tanks. The threat of losing their gasoline to leaks will make sure the tanks don't leak too much and the most wonderful part is that if anyones water gets gasoline in it, well they can buy bottled water at the gas station.
OTOH. here in BC, just last night I had to take a friend to emergency (puking and shitting blood). There was a twenty minute or so wait and took him an hour or so to be in a room with most of that time spent with 4 nurses trying to get an IV in him, his veins were pretty collapsed. The other week, my sister had to be admitted for what turned out to be double by-pass surgery. Basically from her doctors office to a bed in the hospital and surgery 2 days later. Last time I went to emergency, I did have quite a wait of a few hours. I had a nasty cut and people kept coming in who were in worse shape and got triaged ahead of me. I understand if you have bad timing, the wait can be quite long.
Most non-Canadians don't understand that we have at least 11 slightly different healthcare plans, one for each Province, then Federal and I'm not sure how it works in the Territories.
If 40% have only 1 provider, then 60% have more (or less) than one. How does that happen if redundant infrastructure never, ever makes sense?
because historically there was 2 types of infrastructure. The phone line running over twisted copper wires delivering phone service and cable running over co-axial delivering TV service. Two separate types of infrastructure delivering different services. Then with their existing infrastructure and some tweaks, they both started delivering the Internet. In other words, the infrastructure was put in for different reasons then leveraged for internet.
I'm one of those people that are basically past the age of reproduction that you talk about and I spend close to zero on medical care, basically glasses, which I've had to spend money on since I left home. Likewise for my parents while they were alive though towards the end they did have to spend a couple of digits a year on medications, perhaps 10% of their income. Looking at your user ID #, you're probably one of those old people too, it's a shame if it is costing you that much money for medical care.
And I did mention that in the past that elders were often a source of knowledge. Of course there will be exceptions, but in an age when education was rare, the elders usually had some good practical knowledge
When you're past the age of reproduction/rearing, there's no benefit to your genes in your survival - you just compete with your offspring for resources.
The benefit to the old persons genes is in helping those same genes in their (great)grandchildren live. Babysitting is one obvious way the old folks help their genes. In the past, being a store of knowledge was also very important and is perhaps still important.
Living in a country with net neutrality (for now, the ISP's are looking with longing at the US and want to start censoring the web), the billing is really simple. Rather then paying for unlimited internet, I pay for so many GBs. If I want to stream video all the time, whether netflix or the video of a bird feeder, I have to pay more. Likewise, if all I want to do is access email, I can pay less. Everyone also misses the other part of net neutrality going away, namely that the ISP's can censor any traffic they don't like. Right now they're talking about bandwidth hogs, next it'll be the pirates and after that it'll be the sites whose politics the ISP doesn't like. Myself, I have exactly one choice of ISP and for most it is one or two choices, namely the phone company or the cable company.
Actually they do. You'll find that most all autopilots have cell connections that they send telemetry out on. The difference is a true multitasking OS and multiple cores so they can truly multitask with the texting niced.
The difference would be that the Republican Congress would be fighting everything she did, ideally leading to compromise but in reality leading to deadlock. For example, Congress would have tried to block the TPP instead of just putting all the shitty parts into NAFTA.
WTF? There's no reason for an ISP to censor traffic. I'm on a rural wireless plan, in a country with net neutrality and much less populated then yours. It's really simple, I pay for so many GBs, 250 in my case and whether I use it all up at Netflix or streaming a video of a bird feeder or downloading Linux ISO files is none of my ISP's business. What is their business is if I use more then my allocation. That's all that is needed, sell packages of X GB rather then advertising unlimited when you can't deliver unlimited.
The common carrier thing goes back to the railroads. To update it to the automobile age, think of a private toll road and if they were allowed to charge FedEx a higher toll then UPS. Shit like this was common at one point with the railways picking the winners and losers so common carrier status was brought in to force the railways to have common tarifs, eg charge by weight or volume, not the name on the package.
Slashdot Mirror
Slingshotting can add velocity (by stealing it from the planet it is passing) or even reduce velocity. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
My DUI example was bad as actually I just wanted to show where the defense wants to delay the trial to get their defense in order. Charges wouldn't be laid until the tests come in.
As for Pickton, at the point where they searched and found personal possessions of missing people and charged him, they charged him due to having enough evidence (much word of mouth, including at least one woman who escaped him) to probably get a conviction. The more evidence, especially bodies, the better chance of a conviction for first degree murder instead of perhaps only a second degree conviction or worse.
There was also a lot of families who wanted to know where their family members had gone and ended up being a long investigation into how the police fucked up to begin with by ignoring the prostitutes and native women who had been telling the cops about Pickton for too long.
Anyways powers flickering here so time to shut down.
"I don't know what the limits should be but I do understand it takes time to gather and organize evidence."
True but that is or should be over before anyone is accused or arrested.
Ideally, but things often don't work like that. Real world extreme example. Pig farmer suspected of killing prostitutes. Cops search his property and find possessions of a couple of missing women, circumstantial evidence, but enough to lay charges and continue the search. Suspected that he used wood chipper and/or pigs to dispose of the bodies. Takes years to go over the 40 acres or so looking for bone fragments/DNA etc and prosecution keeps asking for more time to get evidence together, which they keep adding to.
Trial starts on first 3 murder charges, takes a year (he's convicted) and then there is another year where Pickton can appeal. Meanwhile there is another 27 murder charges laid.
While the other murder charges were stayed as once he was put away for a few life sentences, why bother, If he'd got off on the first charges there would have been more trials with years going by.
So you have years of evidence gathering, then a possibility of a chain of trials and meanwhile the need to keep this nutcase of the streets.
"There's also the defenses right to take as long as needed to formulate a defense."
Yes, but how does that delay the start of trial? That is a delay that can occur during the trial after the prosecution has proven they even have enough evidence for the case to go to trial.
When does a trial start? Contrived example, suspect is accused of DUI causing death after having 2 drinks and having a pedestrian jump in front of his car. Cops get a warrant for his blood, takes months for test results to come back (saying .09 or .01 over the limit) so trial is delayed for that. Then the defendant exercising his right to make a defence by getting a Judge to order the government to give him one of the two blood samples that were taken during the search (and they better have taken two samples) for independent testing, which also takes months so at the start of the trial the defendant asks for a recess of a couple of months to get his samples tested. Trial is delayed.
"Up here, at least in theory, it is illegal to discriminate against convicted criminals who have served their time unless it has a direct bearing on the job. Peoples privacy rights are also important enough that just being arrested is not usually published and even having charges laid is often not broadcast too much though the court records are usually open to anyone who wants to look."
That is a more sane policy than we have in the US. In the US employers are free to discriminate against convicted criminals, period. Every position requires disclosure of past criminal offenses and failure to disclose is always grounds for termination. Background checks to discover and verify any past criminal record are pretty much standard process and there are a number of employment screening companies that employers utilize to check for criminal history, credit history, and verify employment history. It has gotten to the point where a gap in employment history or poor credit can also exclude someone from a decent job.
You might have been the manager of a major downtown city bank branch before but if you lost your job and took six months searching during which you missed a couple credit card payments you won't be one again. If during that time the cute young thing you encountered at the bar after a few drinks turns out to have been 17 you won't be anything but a fry cook on a sex offender registry for the rest of your life. By the time you are done with all the counseling they are going to put you through they'll even have you convinced you deserve it (happened to someone I knew).
Yea, the power of business and government down there seems insane. Up here, it takes a Judge to put you on the sex offenders list, at
If we are declaring too many people criminals to be able to give them a trial within a couple weeks we are obviously labeling too many things as criminal and need to start relaxing our laws.
While it is true that we're labeling too many things criminal. (We got into this mess up here partially due to a right wing government doing the tough on crime thing without financing it). For the crimes that most people consider serious and that should be crimes such as murder, it often takes more then a few weeks to get the evidence together. I don't know what the limits should be but I do understand it takes time to gather and organize evidence.
It also depends on how you're spending your time waiting for trial. Being stuck in remand is much worse then having some travel restrictions
There's also the defenses right to take as long as needed to formulate a defense. The right to a speedy trial does not negate the right to justice.
Especially considering that the moment we enter a guilty verdict (even a plea) that person's gainful employment prospect is effectively destroyed if it wasn't destroyed the moment we accused them.
A lot of that is cultural, including deciding which rights are more important. Up here, at least in theory, it is illegal to discriminate against convicted criminals who have served their time unless it has a direct bearing on the job. Peoples privacy rights are also important enough that just being arrested is not usually published and even having charges laid is often not broadcast too much though the court records are usually open to anyone who wants to look.
It's easy to tell the people who don't want abortions happening, they try to prevent them through education, making birth control available and empowering women to say no.
Then we have the average right winger who really wants to dominate women, keep them ignorant, impregnate them as early as possible, throw a big guilt trip on them to make them go through with the pregnancy and then put them down for being a single mother.
You're right, the repression of women will be compared to slavery, just not for the bullshit reasons that you give.
It's one of those subjective rights, like the right not to have cruel and unusual punishment or unreasonable searches.
Up here the Canadian Supreme Court recently set new guidelines, 30 months for Federal, 18 months for Provincial. 5 to 4 decision with the minority voting it was too short. Murderers are being released as well as many others. The real problem is austerity where the government hasn't been hiring Judges.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politic...
Great if you're lucky enough to live somewhere with cell reception and can afford the data streaming price.
In BC, it's $70 a month for a single person on top of the taxes.
Tidal forces are a secondary affect from gravity. The important part is the difference in gravitational pull between the center, the near side and the far side. On the Earth, considering the Moon, that difference is 6.8%, which is easily observable if you hang out at the ocean. Even though the Sun has 175 times the gravity effect on the Earth, due to its distance, the difference between the near and far sides is closer to 0.017% leading to much less tidal affects, about 44%.
In other words, it is not only the amount of gravity but the gravity differential that causes tides. I'd think that a swing by of the Moon where the lowest elevation was 1 meter (1,700,000 or so meters from the center) would be noticeable on the 100 meter spaceship. Still wouldn't be much but objects in the ship would noticeably have a tendency to move to the ends of the ship.
The natives around here (Pacific NW) used to travel the few hundred miles into the interior by foot to trade and go to Hawaii to get laid. Somewhat dangerous but not expensive when living off the land (sea). Really the big dangers was other people and getting lost.
As I said, negligible but I'd think we have small sensitive scales that would measure the difference in weight between both ends of a 100 metre ship or just observe a 100 metre cigar shaped ship rotate so one end points at the planet it is swinging by.
The calculations are basically the difference in 2 orbits a 100 metres apart.
There will be tidal affects, probably negligible in any swing by maneuvers that we're likely to do in the fore-see-able future but tidal affects are real
IF a gas pump was rigged like any of ISP meters then there will be big fines.
Ahh, more regulations that hurt small businesses and need to go away. Once gone, competition will keep the gas stations honest and by not having to worry about stupid regulations like needing to check the accuracy of their gas pumps, those poor oil companies might finally be able to turn a profit. Small businesses like Exxon need all the help they can get.
While about it, we can remove some of those other business killing regulations such as having to install non-leaky tanks. The threat of losing their gasoline to leaks will make sure the tanks don't leak too much and the most wonderful part is that if anyones water gets gasoline in it, well they can buy bottled water at the gas station.
OTOH. here in BC, just last night I had to take a friend to emergency (puking and shitting blood). There was a twenty minute or so wait and took him an hour or so to be in a room with most of that time spent with 4 nurses trying to get an IV in him, his veins were pretty collapsed.
The other week, my sister had to be admitted for what turned out to be double by-pass surgery. Basically from her doctors office to a bed in the hospital and surgery 2 days later.
Last time I went to emergency, I did have quite a wait of a few hours. I had a nasty cut and people kept coming in who were in worse shape and got triaged ahead of me. I understand if you have bad timing, the wait can be quite long.
Most non-Canadians don't understand that we have at least 11 slightly different healthcare plans, one for each Province, then Federal and I'm not sure how it works in the Territories.
If 40% have only 1 provider, then 60% have more (or less) than one. How does that happen if redundant infrastructure never, ever makes sense?
because historically there was 2 types of infrastructure. The phone line running over twisted copper wires delivering phone service and cable running over co-axial delivering TV service. Two separate types of infrastructure delivering different services.
Then with their existing infrastructure and some tweaks, they both started delivering the Internet.
In other words, the infrastructure was put in for different reasons then leveraged for internet.
I'm one of those people that are basically past the age of reproduction that you talk about and I spend close to zero on medical care, basically glasses, which I've had to spend money on since I left home. Likewise for my parents while they were alive though towards the end they did have to spend a couple of digits a year on medications, perhaps 10% of their income.
Looking at your user ID #, you're probably one of those old people too, it's a shame if it is costing you that much money for medical care.
And I did mention that in the past that elders were often a source of knowledge. Of course there will be exceptions, but in an age when education was rare, the elders usually had some good practical knowledge
When you're past the age of reproduction/rearing, there's no benefit to your genes in your survival - you just compete with your offspring for resources.
The benefit to the old persons genes is in helping those same genes in their (great)grandchildren live. Babysitting is one obvious way the old folks help their genes. In the past, being a store of knowledge was also very important and is perhaps still important.
Sugar or rather sugary syrups became cheap.
Living in a country with net neutrality (for now, the ISP's are looking with longing at the US and want to start censoring the web), the billing is really simple. Rather then paying for unlimited internet, I pay for so many GBs. If I want to stream video all the time, whether netflix or the video of a bird feeder, I have to pay more. Likewise, if all I want to do is access email, I can pay less.
Everyone also misses the other part of net neutrality going away, namely that the ISP's can censor any traffic they don't like. Right now they're talking about bandwidth hogs, next it'll be the pirates and after that it'll be the sites whose politics the ISP doesn't like.
Myself, I have exactly one choice of ISP and for most it is one or two choices, namely the phone company or the cable company.
Actually they do. You'll find that most all autopilots have cell connections that they send telemetry out on.
The difference is a true multitasking OS and multiple cores so they can truly multitask with the texting niced.
The difference would be that the Republican Congress would be fighting everything she did, ideally leading to compromise but in reality leading to deadlock.
For example, Congress would have tried to block the TPP instead of just putting all the shitty parts into NAFTA.
WTF? There's no reason for an ISP to censor traffic. I'm on a rural wireless plan, in a country with net neutrality and much less populated then yours. It's really simple, I pay for so many GBs, 250 in my case and whether I use it all up at Netflix or streaming a video of a bird feeder or downloading Linux ISO files is none of my ISP's business. What is their business is if I use more then my allocation.
That's all that is needed, sell packages of X GB rather then advertising unlimited when you can't deliver unlimited.
So basically having rights depends on having a good lawyer or more to go up against $BIG_COMPANY
Around here there are stalking laws so depending on why your gathering my info and following me around, it can be illegal to observe me in public.
The common carrier thing goes back to the railroads. To update it to the automobile age, think of a private toll road and if they were allowed to charge FedEx a higher toll then UPS. Shit like this was common at one point with the railways picking the winners and losers so common carrier status was brought in to force the railways to have common tarifs, eg charge by weight or volume, not the name on the package.