That is self-evidently not true: the universe as a whole could be considered a "closed container", but you clearly have concentrations of high and low pressure-- due to gravity.
Or as a thought experiment-- placing a hermetic seal around the earth at the edge of space would not change the exceptionally low pressure at the outer edges and the exceptionally high pressure at the bottom of the ocean.
The obvious question is "Why", and that post doesnt really explain its numbers well (though it does some linking). I mean, the equations indicate 40 year lifespan on earth vs 12 in space, but dont give a "why", so Id like to clarify for anyone who is as curious as I was.
The obvious assumption is that earth would be less friendly than space-- you have dust, the atmosphere, weather, etc to deal with, none of which exist in space.
Apparently the missing factor is solar radiation (ironically); apparently solar flares and similar events are very nasty for solar cells and knock huge chunks out of their life-- one of the linked pages indicates that single solar flares can knock 3-6 years off of a cell's lifespan. So the net result is that while you can get ~3x more raw "input" at the solar cell, you have to deal with a livespan roughly 1/3 that of a similar cell on earth and get two multiplicative transmission losses (space to ground, and ground to grid) on top of it.
The only gripe I have with the article you linked is that the transmission losses seem a bit high for the wireless transmission. However, its a moot point-- if you're losing all of your gains to lowered longevity, and you have to transmit twice, it would be virtually impossible no matter how good your wireless transmission was to beat the single transmission loss for ground-based.
Actually, the opposite is true. Cells, silicon ones anyway, are more efficient under the air. It has to do with their band gap.
You're gonna have to explain this more. The atmosphere filters out a good chunk of the spectrum we receive from the sun; if there were truly some benefit to said filtering (which is very suspect) we could simply place a filter in front of the cells.
Sundance is $50, I believe, as are some of the ones in Little Cottonwood canyon (SLC, Utah). It depends if you purchase at the slopes or the ski shop, tho.
Dont forget you gotta factor in medical bills when you throw your back out:(
Honestly though I dont mind east coast skiing, its just a different sort of thing-- and we did get some "powder" here this year (Liberty PA, Return of Snowmageddon 2/20)
How cute. Low-end boots cost $400-500. Then you have your winter gear, your skis, and all the rest. Then you have your lift tickets (easily $50 per day for touristy east-coast resorts). The cost scales to thousands of dollars per run if you're doing fresh powder runs by helicopter.
Somehow skiing doesnt have the problem if being popular tho, probably because its actually exciting and active.
Skiing has those problems and more, and is pretty popular. Generally getting access to slopes requires a lot more planning, as theyre usually not local.
Youre forgetting about the 3m/s^2 acceleration that the asteroid is applying to the load.
Either your rocket slams into the asteroid, ending the gravity tractor, or you need to pump an incredible amount of energy into the rocket to keep it at a distance. Since when do Saturn Vs have sufficient fuel to fire for a year straight?
A multi-ton object would not have any appreciable gravitational pull. The largest man-made objects ever created do not create an appreciable gravitational field. Using the calculator here: http://astro.unl.edu/classacti... An asteroid with a mass of 4*10^18kg at a distance of 1km from a Saturn 5 rocket fully loaded (Mass of 4 * 10^7kg) would feel an acceleration of 0.000000001 m/s^2, and would accelerate the rocket at a rate 10 orders of magnitude higher. The only noticeable effect would be the rocket being pulled into the asteroid, barely altering its course before joining it.
That completely ignores how insanely expensive even that minuscule experiment would be.
People also make the argument that the prior communists just werent doing it right.
Id prefer to learn from history. It has NEVER gone well with eugenics, and once you've accepted the premise of eugenics the rest of the nastiness follows logically.
Just as the strongest argument against communism is to simply point at every attempt to implement it, likewise the strongest argument against Eugenics is to look at all the times we (US, Germany, etc) attempted it.
Its not a good path to go down. It invariably leads towards first/second class citizens, people whose ability to reproduce is considered detrimental to society, and a tyranny of the masses.
Your timeline is a heck of a lot more accurate than the dude above, who is claiming Snowden "passed thru" hong kong on the way to a nation (ecuador) he hadnt even brought asylum up with.
Not clear what lies youre saying Im telling, however, as he was in Hong Kong for fourteen days, he did get to Moscow, and he had not approached Ecuador until that time-- those arent really arguable. I DIDNT say "why" he was in those locations, just that he wasnt "on his way to Ecuador" as was asserted by GP. Might be helpful if you didnt read things into my posts that just arent there.
Rights are nothing but words until they are backed up by someone with the power to enforce them. Generally, that means whoever has sovereignty of an area; in our case that would be the state and federal government.
You miss the point. With software, the agreement generally is that you may use but NOT distribute or copy the software. That right is reserved by the maker.
With the truck, the agreement is that you use, but NOT paint the truck red. Joey reserves that right for himself.
In either case, the owner of the property has the right to be pissed off if you "take" their rights. Not sure why you're arguing this, the law is sort of clear on it.
Perhaps you could clarify. Im not clear how putting all of Europe and half of South America between you and Ecuador makes it easier to get there. Its a ~15 hour flight to China, and he got all the way there before they began the process of revoking his passport. How exactly would he not have already been in Ecuador if he had gotten a direct(ish) flight?
More to the point, theres a timeline here that you should acquaint yourself with. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-... Big details are that Snowden was in Hong Kong before we were even looking for him, and he remained there for a full FOURTEEN DAYS. Thats an odd way to get to Ecuador-- particularly considering he didnt even broach asylum with Ecuador until he arrived in Moscow eighteen days after the June 6 revelation.
The idea that he was taking a circuitous route because the goal was Ecuador is pure fantasy.
He passed through two incredibly repressive countries in his travels, for the most circuitous itinerary ever. And as I recall, the offer from Argentina wasnt even out there until after he got to Moscow.
So the US is enough of a "Big Bad" that its worth Snowden risking his life.... so he flees to an even Bigger Bad, and cooperates with their propaganda machine.
Im not going into the validity of what the NSA does or attempting to justify it; thats a complicated discussion and Im actually not too happy with the state of surveillance in the US.
My point is that Snowden is an utter hypocrite at this point-- he chose to get buddy-buddy with countries that are far worse than us. Its pretty hard to defend his choices in where he fled to.
Avoiding this is simple, in theory. Tell the truth, and don't be afraid to change your mind if shown evidence that you're wrong.
Hes not saying "dont do that", hes saying "dont be an obnoxious obstacle when this stuff comes up." Tell them theyre doing it wrong, if they insist, fulfill the request to the best of your ability, and make sure you have records of where you told them they were doing it wrong.
If you just constantly obstruct, theyll get rid of you and find someone else to implement their dumb idea, and chances are that person will make it worse.
Slashdot Mirror
That is self-evidently not true: the universe as a whole could be considered a "closed container", but you clearly have concentrations of high and low pressure-- due to gravity.
Or as a thought experiment-- placing a hermetic seal around the earth at the edge of space would not change the exceptionally low pressure at the outer edges and the exceptionally high pressure at the bottom of the ocean.
The obvious question is "Why", and that post doesnt really explain its numbers well (though it does some linking). I mean, the equations indicate 40 year lifespan on earth vs 12 in space, but dont give a "why", so Id like to clarify for anyone who is as curious as I was.
The obvious assumption is that earth would be less friendly than space-- you have dust, the atmosphere, weather, etc to deal with, none of which exist in space.
Apparently the missing factor is solar radiation (ironically); apparently solar flares and similar events are very nasty for solar cells and knock huge chunks out of their life-- one of the linked pages indicates that single solar flares can knock 3-6 years off of a cell's lifespan. So the net result is that while you can get ~3x more raw "input" at the solar cell, you have to deal with a livespan roughly 1/3 that of a similar cell on earth and get two multiplicative transmission losses (space to ground, and ground to grid) on top of it.
The only gripe I have with the article you linked is that the transmission losses seem a bit high for the wireless transmission. However, its a moot point-- if you're losing all of your gains to lowered longevity, and you have to transmit twice, it would be virtually impossible no matter how good your wireless transmission was to beat the single transmission loss for ground-based.
Actually, the opposite is true. Cells, silicon ones anyway, are more efficient under the air. It has to do with their band gap.
You're gonna have to explain this more. The atmosphere filters out a good chunk of the spectrum we receive from the sun; if there were truly some benefit to said filtering (which is very suspect) we could simply place a filter in front of the cells.
Atmospheric pressure is actually due to gravity.
Sundance is $50, I believe, as are some of the ones in Little Cottonwood canyon (SLC, Utah). It depends if you purchase at the slopes or the ski shop, tho.
Dont forget you gotta factor in medical bills when you throw your back out :(
Honestly though I dont mind east coast skiing, its just a different sort of thing-- and we did get some "powder" here this year (Liberty PA, Return of Snowmageddon 2/20)
Its roughly the same out west. Some slopes are $50, some are $80.
Its the gear + travel that gets you, though.
You think golf is more expensive than Skiing?
How cute. Low-end boots cost $400-500. Then you have your winter gear, your skis, and all the rest. Then you have your lift tickets (easily $50 per day for touristy east-coast resorts). The cost scales to thousands of dollars per run if you're doing fresh powder runs by helicopter.
Somehow skiing doesnt have the problem if being popular tho, probably because its actually exciting and active.
Skiing has those problems and more, and is pretty popular. Generally getting access to slopes requires a lot more planning, as theyre usually not local.
Amanita phalloides (Deathcap mushrooms) are NOT toxic.
Hundreds of thousands of rabbits would challenge the notion that it is toxic.
Youre forgetting about the 3m/s^2 acceleration that the asteroid is applying to the load.
Either your rocket slams into the asteroid, ending the gravity tractor, or you need to pump an incredible amount of energy into the rocket to keep it at a distance. Since when do Saturn Vs have sufficient fuel to fire for a year straight?
Im not sure if youre serious.
A multi-ton object would not have any appreciable gravitational pull. The largest man-made objects ever created do not create an appreciable gravitational field. Using the calculator here:
http://astro.unl.edu/classacti...
An asteroid with a mass of 4*10^18kg at a distance of 1km from a Saturn 5 rocket fully loaded (Mass of 4 * 10^7kg) would feel an acceleration of 0.000000001 m/s^2, and would accelerate the rocket at a rate 10 orders of magnitude higher. The only noticeable effect would be the rocket being pulled into the asteroid, barely altering its course before joining it.
That completely ignores how insanely expensive even that minuscule experiment would be.
People also make the argument that the prior communists just werent doing it right.
Id prefer to learn from history. It has NEVER gone well with eugenics, and once you've accepted the premise of eugenics the rest of the nastiness follows logically.
Just as the strongest argument against communism is to simply point at every attempt to implement it, likewise the strongest argument against Eugenics is to look at all the times we (US, Germany, etc) attempted it.
Its not a good path to go down. It invariably leads towards first/second class citizens, people whose ability to reproduce is considered detrimental to society, and a tyranny of the masses.
Maybe he shouldnt have fessed up to the leak. Maybe he should have stayed in Hong Kong. I dont know, I just dont think much of the choice he DID make.
Your timeline is a heck of a lot more accurate than the dude above, who is claiming Snowden "passed thru" hong kong on the way to a nation (ecuador) he hadnt even brought asylum up with.
Not clear what lies youre saying Im telling, however, as he was in Hong Kong for fourteen days, he did get to Moscow, and he had not approached Ecuador until that time-- those arent really arguable. I DIDNT say "why" he was in those locations, just that he wasnt "on his way to Ecuador" as was asserted by GP. Might be helpful if you didnt read things into my posts that just arent there.
He want from criticizing US spying to buddying up with an even worse (esp in that regard) nation. That is called hypocrisy.
Rights are nothing but words until they are backed up by someone with the power to enforce them. Generally, that means whoever has sovereignty of an area; in our case that would be the state and federal government.
You miss the point. With software, the agreement generally is that you may use but NOT distribute or copy the software. That right is reserved by the maker.
With the truck, the agreement is that you use, but NOT paint the truck red. Joey reserves that right for himself.
In either case, the owner of the property has the right to be pissed off if you "take" their rights. Not sure why you're arguing this, the law is sort of clear on it.
Perhaps you could clarify. Im not clear how putting all of Europe and half of South America between you and Ecuador makes it easier to get there. Its a ~15 hour flight to China, and he got all the way there before they began the process of revoking his passport. How exactly would he not have already been in Ecuador if he had gotten a direct(ish) flight?
More to the point, theres a timeline here that you should acquaint yourself with.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
Big details are that Snowden was in Hong Kong before we were even looking for him, and he remained there for a full FOURTEEN DAYS. Thats an odd way to get to Ecuador-- particularly considering he didnt even broach asylum with Ecuador until he arrived in Moscow eighteen days after the June 6 revelation.
The idea that he was taking a circuitous route because the goal was Ecuador is pure fantasy.
He had a choice to not cooperate with the most belligerent, imperialistic, and repressive government in Eurasia right now.
Talking about NSA "invasions of privacy" is a bit ironic when you're cooperating with a country that is literally invading other countries.
He passed through two incredibly repressive countries in his travels, for the most circuitous itinerary ever. And as I recall, the offer from Argentina wasnt even out there until after he got to Moscow.
Im not clear why anyone thinks im defending the NSA. Im not. Im talking about how backwards and hypocritical Snowdens actions are at this point.
So the US is enough of a "Big Bad" that its worth Snowden risking his life.... so he flees to an even Bigger Bad, and cooperates with their propaganda machine.
No choice my foot.
Im not going into the validity of what the NSA does or attempting to justify it; thats a complicated discussion and Im actually not too happy with the state of surveillance in the US.
My point is that Snowden is an utter hypocrite at this point-- he chose to get buddy-buddy with countries that are far worse than us. Its pretty hard to defend his choices in where he fled to.
Avoiding this is simple, in theory. Tell the truth, and don't be afraid to change your mind if shown evidence that you're wrong.
Hes not saying "dont do that", hes saying "dont be an obnoxious obstacle when this stuff comes up." Tell them theyre doing it wrong, if they insist, fulfill the request to the best of your ability, and make sure you have records of where you told them they were doing it wrong.
If you just constantly obstruct, theyll get rid of you and find someone else to implement their dumb idea, and chances are that person will make it worse.