I have an easier and less costly implementation:
1) Provide reading material on how to take down and detain an unruly passenger in hand-to-hand combat in the back of each seat.
2) Have an easier way to report abuses of power by flight attendants.
3) Give flight attendants real handcuffs and duct tape.
4) Stop overselling flights.
1 allows passengers to take a hijacker out. 2 prevents abuses of 3. 4 allows people to have the possibility to move away from a violent person handcuffed to his seat.
Must everything decided by a judge be due to partisanship? Just because the U.S. Supreme Court as of late has appeared to be much more partisan than it usually is, does not correlate to an increase of the Judicial Branch stepping outside of its self-imposed restriction of staying out of political issues. One could relate this to the increase in attention on decisions of the courts due to the readiness and ease with which information can be attained; one could also point out that the courts have always, at some point down the line, stepped outside their bounds and decided a questionably political issue that they probably should have stayed out of. Most judges enjoy their tenure and wouldn't risk being impeached just to get their jollies off by "making the other party look bad." Anyway, I really wish the U.S. Supreme Court would have just voted down party lines in Marbury v. Madison so that way we wouldn't be able to argue about Judicial Review and the potential abuse of the judges voting in favor of a perceived party affiliation because leaving the interpretation of the Constitution up to the Executive and Legislative branches alone would definitely work.
The U.S. Courts are supposed to leave their party affiliations at the door and no longer take part in political affairs in the public sphere, but no one said anything about them not being able to have a "belief structure": a moral and ethical view of how they should interpret the Constitution and the laws that are passed in addition to it. Interpreting the Constitution conservatively, moderately, or liberally has nothing to do with the political parties that may fly the same flags to rally their constituents. As a judge, one must try to remain as detached as possible, always considering the desperate balance between the individual and societal rights, and federal and state powers.
look at all of the Supreme Court cases where major changes in national course have been made by a single person voting along party lines.
Courts have very much to do with a codified rule of law as they are the last check in whether a law is just in accordance to the Constitution. Major national changes only occur if the Executive and Legislative branches actually agree to abide by the decisions the Courts hand down; the Courts have no physical power to compel them to carry out their judgments. The reason why it appears that votes go 5-4 down party lines is that these judges exhibit methodologies that are prevalent in society: some hold the greater good for society above that of the individual, the classic republican, while others hold the individual's rights above societal standards, the classic liberal. What separates good judges from bad is those that develop a methodology and stay true to it, not sacrificing their moral and ethical standards to vote how the one that gave you the judgeship wants you to vote. This is readily evident in the established Supreme Court justices and it hopefully will prove true with the newly appointed ones as well. If the cases needed to be decided 6-3 or 7-2, the Supreme Court would just reject or defer judgment of many more cases. Oh, and the government can't drag it out forever, there is a system in place to ensure that a final judgment will be reached - you can't overturn Supreme Court decision unless another case comes up with a similar law about 25-50+ years down the line: Brown v. Board of Education.
See, there isn't anything wrong with pricing tiers for the individual users wanting to access the internet at varying speeds and reliabilties. The problem comes in when they also want to charge the people _with_ the content for the users visiting their site; it's extortion, pure and simple. On top of that, they want to prioritize the protocols going over their networks. It makes sense for network administrators to prioritize certain protocols in order to achieve a more efficient network; however, they want to make it so that certain protocols are never used on their networks.
There would be nothing wrong with any of this if the ISP market were sufficiently saturated with competitors so that the free market could push towards network neutrality on its own, but this won't happen when there are still plenty of areas that are lucky to have a single ISP, let alone have a choice.
So, if the patch I downloaded from a site I trust that happens to not be a MS certified download source, how is this going to hurt the company that I already patronized?
All economic questions aside, why shut down a site that may be compromised at some point in the future? Will it ruin your day when you realize that the compromised custom install of Windows is maxing out your 56k modem (because you live in a rural area not serviced by anything faster), forcing you to reinstall via the original source? It may do just that; however, to take away freedom from a customer that already bought your product to do as they wish, with their copy, is just wrong.
No, she's just trying to make a really strong and solid argument to build her case on.
1) Declare innocence
2) Blame some guy for installing alleged software.
3) Blame the maker of alleged software for working as intended.
4) Blame ISP for not informing her that she was using her bandwidth that she was paying for.
5) ???
6) Profit.
All in all, it's a fairly reasonable defensive strategy. I mean, who wouldn't want to shed doubt on their case's credibility early on in the proceedings?
I agree. It seems the "Global Warming" debate all hinges around the important misnomer of the debate itself. It is not the global increase of temperatures, or enthalpy, it is the global increase of entropy. So, expect more chaos in your weather patterns!
It's a good thing our government has it's priorities straight and is punishing those that make the right choice and blow the whistle on illegal activities instead of encouraging those in key positions of power to bend, and break, the law whenever it benefits the party in power.
Leaking information to foreign governments: bad.
Leaking information about illegal activities occurring regularly in a program with no judicial or congressional oversight to the national media: good.
Whoever actually leaked the information should be given a fucking medal and a pay raise. Since he or she will probably be fired, tried for treason, and blackballed out of any governmental or "secret heavy job" from here on out, I'd like to thank you for sticking to your moral compass and doing what you believed was correct. You did a great service to the people of this country, and you deserve much better than what may come your way in the future.
Batteries are not limited to 50% efficiency, circuits are once you put a capacitor in it. Wbattery = Ucapacitor + Heat => QV = 1/2*QV + 1/2*QV
Electric circuit with a battery and a capacitor:
E, efficiency = Wuseful / Wtotal
= 1/2*Q*V / Q*V
= 1/2 = 50%
Gas powered engine without ways to use lost heat - this is assuming about room temperature intake
E, efficiency = 1 - QL / QH
= 1 - 300 K / 400 K
= 1 - 3/4 = 25%
Hopefully, the fuel we use in the rockets will be neutral in terms of entropy change in the environment. So, that means either greater energy density batteries and solar panels that push closer and closer to the theoretical 50% efficiency, or using ethanol and/or butanol for fuel. If not, we, as a species, would have a three-pronged mission in space: first, obtain raw material to develop new technologies to go further and quicker into space; second, find new sources of fuel; and finally, either solve the ever increasing entropy problem or move the population somewhere else.
Personally, I dislike the term "global warming" as that would suggest that the overall enthalpy of earth were increasing. We are releasing more energy into the system so the overall entropy is increasing due to so many solid and liquids being converted into gas. I am not a scientist but that's just my two cents.
It's fine. I understand why you would want something as exciting as breakthrough like this to make headway. It sounds really cool. The only thing that should trouble you about the company is the remarkably small amount of actual information on their site. Too much Public Relation mumbo jumbo, not enough Engineering specifications.:-/
I'm sorry but there is barely any in-depth material in the article or anything that can be viewed as actual information on their website. The information I'm taking about isn't the mission statements or the generic drivel that every company shells out, it's the information that can be used to actually generate some of the forces a structure like this will undergo.
The two I know are: the jet stream - they plan to build toward the equator, out of reach of all three jets and the lightening - the ground station isn't going to be on the ground, the plan is to create a sea-going station, plus in some areas thunderstorms are nearly non-existent. I know that that wasn't a complete answer on the lightening, but I'm just going on what I remember. Alright, maybe I didn't elaborate. The structure will undergo tremendous stress due to the combined, and variable, drag forces over the entire structure. It doesn't take thunderstorms to build up electrical charge. Take a piece of metal and move it through an electric field, such as one generated by the earth, and you will build up charge. Which order of magnitude of a path is easier to take: 10^8 m of carbon nano-tubing or 10^0 m of air? While these questions may seem laughable, the engineers working on this project need to literally take everything into account while in the design process. To expect anything less is to invite disaster to the project. I have other questions I'd like to have answered but I'll just leave it at these before I start "reaching" a bit.
He may have covered the easy topics, but he failed to even skim the surface on the structural integrity questions that will come up.
Materials exist today that are strong enough and light enough to support the weight of the lifter and itself. If that is so, can the structure sustain the drag forces of the jet stream? What about the linear and volumetric expansion coefficients? Over a structure this large, are you absolutely certain the large differences in temperatures will not cause the structural integrity to degrade rapidly or pose a significant risk due to changes in enthalpy over large periods of time? Have you taken into account the part of the structure in space that will absorb solar radiation unlike another cross section a small distance lower that would not absorb as much radiation? Do you have plans on how to dissipate the built up energy due to lightning strikes? Will that current go to ground first or will it jump to the cargo and/or electrical systems? Those are just a few of the questions that came to mind. They may have already been answered elsewhere but I did not find them in his rebuttal or a quick search of the web. Feel free to answer these if you can.
While I am not a libertarian, I do not consent to an employer penetrating me with an RFID chip. It's already a joke with what corporations are allowed to get away with, screwing over their employees in order to justify a marginal stock increase.
At what point would you object to the slippery slope a move like this would cause? When RFID implants become mandatory for all employees? When the government requires all RFID implants to be registered with a national database? Etc. Your rights as a person, and employee, end when you consent to let your employer, and others, walk all over you in the guise of proficiency, progress, and patriotism.
True, however, we are being taxed three times: once when we purchase a good and/or service, second time whenever we receive payment for our efforts, and a third time due to a property tax. While we do have the possibility to get money back in the form of a tax return each year, that is only if we keep diligent records of how much we spend throughout the year - and if the government agrees that we did actually spend that much of our money in sales tax.
If the government actually cared about clearing up the obfuscated tax code, they would simplify it to one tax system. Then a lot of these exceptions that keep cropping up would be solved and we wouldn't have to worry about the video game world as it would be clearly outlined.
To reiterate: it doesn't make sense that you are taxed on money earned, money spent, and perceived value of land and home.
If people want cable, or, hell, wish to purchase a TV, they get handed a form that they have to flip past ten pages of porn to sign, and certify that they consent to have the filthiest things possible beamed directly into their and their children's brain. I agree. Those ten pages of porn must be stared at long enough to find a small line to sign on each page in order to purchase a TV. In addition, the Unholy Trinity must be included in these ten pages. The final requirement is that each prospecting TV purchaser must not vomit before, during, or directly after the signing agreement.
All jokes aside, is it even plausible to say that a "Buy out" feature in a bidding system is non-obvious and therefore patentable? Is it really that novel of an idea or is this another fine example of "A normal idea but on the Internet!" kind of innovation?
Slashdot Mirror
I have an easier and less costly implementation:
1) Provide reading material on how to take down and detain an unruly passenger in hand-to-hand combat in the back of each seat.
2) Have an easier way to report abuses of power by flight attendants.
3) Give flight attendants real handcuffs and duct tape.
4) Stop overselling flights.
1 allows passengers to take a hijacker out. 2 prevents abuses of 3. 4 allows people to have the possibility to move away from a violent person handcuffed to his seat.
The U.S. Courts are supposed to leave their party affiliations at the door and no longer take part in political affairs in the public sphere, but no one said anything about them not being able to have a "belief structure": a moral and ethical view of how they should interpret the Constitution and the laws that are passed in addition to it. Interpreting the Constitution conservatively, moderately, or liberally has nothing to do with the political parties that may fly the same flags to rally their constituents. As a judge, one must try to remain as detached as possible, always considering the desperate balance between the individual and societal rights, and federal and state powers.
look at all of the Supreme Court cases where major changes in national course have been made by a single person voting along party lines.
Courts have very much to do with a codified rule of law as they are the last check in whether a law is just in accordance to the Constitution. Major national changes only occur if the Executive and Legislative branches actually agree to abide by the decisions the Courts hand down; the Courts have no physical power to compel them to carry out their judgments. The reason why it appears that votes go 5-4 down party lines is that these judges exhibit methodologies that are prevalent in society: some hold the greater good for society above that of the individual, the classic republican, while others hold the individual's rights above societal standards, the classic liberal. What separates good judges from bad is those that develop a methodology and stay true to it, not sacrificing their moral and ethical standards to vote how the one that gave you the judgeship wants you to vote. This is readily evident in the established Supreme Court justices and it hopefully will prove true with the newly appointed ones as well. If the cases needed to be decided 6-3 or 7-2, the Supreme Court would just reject or defer judgment of many more cases. Oh, and the government can't drag it out forever, there is a system in place to ensure that a final judgment will be reached - you can't overturn Supreme Court decision unless another case comes up with a similar law about 25-50+ years down the line: Brown v. Board of Education.
See, there isn't anything wrong with pricing tiers for the individual users wanting to access the internet at varying speeds and reliabilties. The problem comes in when they also want to charge the people _with_ the content for the users visiting their site; it's extortion, pure and simple. On top of that, they want to prioritize the protocols going over their networks. It makes sense for network administrators to prioritize certain protocols in order to achieve a more efficient network; however, they want to make it so that certain protocols are never used on their networks.
There would be nothing wrong with any of this if the ISP market were sufficiently saturated with competitors so that the free market could push towards network neutrality on its own, but this won't happen when there are still plenty of areas that are lucky to have a single ISP, let alone have a choice.
So, if the patch I downloaded from a site I trust that happens to not be a MS certified download source, how is this going to hurt the company that I already patronized?
All economic questions aside, why shut down a site that may be compromised at some point in the future? Will it ruin your day when you realize that the compromised custom install of Windows is maxing out your 56k modem (because you live in a rural area not serviced by anything faster), forcing you to reinstall via the original source? It may do just that; however, to take away freedom from a customer that already bought your product to do as they wish, with their copy, is just wrong.
No, she's just trying to make a really strong and solid argument to build her case on.
1) Declare innocence
2) Blame some guy for installing alleged software.
3) Blame the maker of alleged software for working as intended.
4) Blame ISP for not informing her that she was using her bandwidth that she was paying for.
5) ???
6) Profit.
All in all, it's a fairly reasonable defensive strategy. I mean, who wouldn't want to shed doubt on their case's credibility early on in the proceedings?
I agree. It seems the "Global Warming" debate all hinges around the important misnomer of the debate itself. It is not the global increase of temperatures, or enthalpy, it is the global increase of entropy.
So, expect more chaos in your weather patterns!
It's a good thing our government has it's priorities straight and is punishing those that make the right choice and blow the whistle on illegal activities instead of encouraging those in key positions of power to bend, and break, the law whenever it benefits the party in power. Leaking information to foreign governments: bad. Leaking information about illegal activities occurring regularly in a program with no judicial or congressional oversight to the national media: good. Whoever actually leaked the information should be given a fucking medal and a pay raise. Since he or she will probably be fired, tried for treason, and blackballed out of any governmental or "secret heavy job" from here on out, I'd like to thank you for sticking to your moral compass and doing what you believed was correct. You did a great service to the people of this country, and you deserve much better than what may come your way in the future.
Batteries are not limited to 50% efficiency, circuits are once you put a capacitor in it. Wbattery = Ucapacitor + Heat => QV = 1/2*QV + 1/2*QV
Electric circuit with a battery and a capacitor:
E, efficiency = Wuseful / Wtotal
= 1/2*Q*V / Q*V
= 1/2 = 50%
Gas powered engine without ways to use lost heat - this is assuming about room temperature intake
E, efficiency = 1 - QL / QH
= 1 - 300 K / 400 K
= 1 - 3/4 = 25%
Hopefully, the fuel we use in the rockets will be neutral in terms of entropy change in the environment. So, that means either greater energy density batteries and solar panels that push closer and closer to the theoretical 50% efficiency, or using ethanol and/or butanol for fuel. If not, we, as a species, would have a three-pronged mission in space: first, obtain raw material to develop new technologies to go further and quicker into space; second, find new sources of fuel; and finally, either solve the ever increasing entropy problem or move the population somewhere else.
Personally, I dislike the term "global warming" as that would suggest that the overall enthalpy of earth were increasing. We are releasing more energy into the system so the overall entropy is increasing due to so many solid and liquids being converted into gas. I am not a scientist but that's just my two cents.
It's fine. I understand why you would want something as exciting as breakthrough like this to make headway. It sounds really cool. The only thing that should trouble you about the company is the remarkably small amount of actual information on their site. Too much Public Relation mumbo jumbo, not enough Engineering specifications. :-/
The two I know are: the jet stream - they plan to build toward the equator, out of reach of all three jets and the lightening - the ground station isn't going to be on the ground, the plan is to create a sea-going station, plus in some areas thunderstorms are nearly non-existent. I know that that wasn't a complete answer on the lightening, but I'm just going on what I remember. Alright, maybe I didn't elaborate. The structure will undergo tremendous stress due to the combined, and variable, drag forces over the entire structure. It doesn't take thunderstorms to build up electrical charge. Take a piece of metal and move it through an electric field, such as one generated by the earth, and you will build up charge. Which order of magnitude of a path is easier to take: 10^8 m of carbon nano-tubing or 10^0 m of air? While these questions may seem laughable, the engineers working on this project need to literally take everything into account while in the design process. To expect anything less is to invite disaster to the project. I have other questions I'd like to have answered but I'll just leave it at these before I start "reaching" a bit.
If they had all these answers, then they would be able to more effectively describe the material to be synthesized in order to build the tower.
Materials exist today that are strong enough and light enough to support the weight of the lifter and itself. If that is so, can the structure sustain the drag forces of the jet stream? What about the linear and volumetric expansion coefficients? Over a structure this large, are you absolutely certain the large differences in temperatures will not cause the structural integrity to degrade rapidly or pose a significant risk due to changes in enthalpy over large periods of time? Have you taken into account the part of the structure in space that will absorb solar radiation unlike another cross section a small distance lower that would not absorb as much radiation? Do you have plans on how to dissipate the built up energy due to lightning strikes? Will that current go to ground first or will it jump to the cargo and/or electrical systems? Those are just a few of the questions that came to mind. They may have already been answered elsewhere but I did not find them in his rebuttal or a quick search of the web. Feel free to answer these if you can.
While I am not a libertarian, I do not consent to an employer penetrating me with an RFID chip. It's already a joke with what corporations are allowed to get away with, screwing over their employees in order to justify a marginal stock increase.
At what point would you object to the slippery slope a move like this would cause? When RFID implants become mandatory for all employees? When the government requires all RFID implants to be registered with a national database? Etc. Your rights as a person, and employee, end when you consent to let your employer, and others, walk all over you in the guise of proficiency, progress, and patriotism.
True, however, we are being taxed three times: once when we purchase a good and/or service, second time whenever we receive payment for our efforts, and a third time due to a property tax. While we do have the possibility to get money back in the form of a tax return each year, that is only if we keep diligent records of how much we spend throughout the year - and if the government agrees that we did actually spend that much of our money in sales tax.
If the government actually cared about clearing up the obfuscated tax code, they would simplify it to one tax system. Then a lot of these exceptions that keep cropping up would be solved and we wouldn't have to worry about the video game world as it would be clearly outlined.
To reiterate: it doesn't make sense that you are taxed on money earned, money spent, and perceived value of land and home.
All jokes aside, is it even plausible to say that a "Buy out" feature in a bidding system is non-obvious and therefore patentable? Is it really that novel of an idea or is this another fine example of "A normal idea but on the Internet!" kind of innovation?