I guess that the transition to 5D means that all the matter that we know (atoms, light,...), will be destroyed.
Not necessarily. To visualize increasing dimensions, think of a sheet of paper. Two dimensions. Imagine it being progressively crumpled, until it becomes a paper ball. Now it's three dimensional. Everything you wrote on the paper is still intact.
why should I have to pay for all of your children's education(s) with my tax dollars in the first place?
Because civilized society has agreed that the burden of providing some essential needs for those who cannot afford them should be shared by everybody.
There are couples, both gay and straight, that want marriage primarily for monetary purposes
I can guarantee you that no straight couple ever got married for the tax breaks, because it doesn't pay enough. But for gay couples that's the only plausible reason for wanting gay marriage regulated by law.
Hi, this is my husband, Tom. Or hi, this is my (business? What's domestic mean?) partner, Tom.
What you call Tom is between you and him, the law has nothing to say about that.
Then there's inheritance rights.
Make a will, it's that simple.
Then there's the power to make important medical decisions.
That's a problem for married couples as well. There has been cases where spouses and blood relatives have fought in court to make such decisions.
And the ability to avoid anti-gay family members from interfering in the most devastating point of your life.
Why do you think there should be a LAW to protect you against that? Do you believe all families approve the marriage choices of all their members? In-laws are very often a delicate subject in any family.
Why do you want tax breaks specifically for having kids, anyway? If you can't afford them, don't have them.
Tell that to the kids whose parents couldn't afford them. It's perfectly possible for you to tell your same-sex lover to get a job, but you cannot tell a child to go back to the womb.
Except the tax breaks aren't for families; married couples without children are eligible for them too
There's a slippery slop there. Many couples plan on having children, they make decisions based on that. To be fair, a couple that does not intend to have children is cheating on the system.
A totally neutral system would do away with all tax breaks for dependents, but it sucks to be born in a family that cannot sustain itself, so we give children a break. They never asked to be born, did they?
Why cant you have several bitches? You can have several cars, several children, several houses.. What about freedom..
Because the supply of bitches is limited and the rich guys would get them all. Children, houses, and cars can be made in unlimited amounts, but not bitches.
On the average, for every bitch that's born, a mofo is born. And every mofo wants at least one bitch (that is if he isn't gay, of course). Do the math.
The question is why marriage should have any legal status at all.
It shouldn't. At least not marriage itself. It's the family that needs legal protection. Think of the children.
The only logical reason for regulated marriage is to create a stable environment for raising children. Otherwise it would be a civil contract like any other.
You can have a partner for whatever purposes you both agree to. You can start a business, a charity, a club, a scientific society, or you can just agree to live together. That's why I think this "gay marriage" thing is so stupid. Unless you intend to raise children it's just a contract like any other.
Until greed comes along. What gay partners want is not recognition, they are after the pensions and tax benefits that were created for families. It's one thing to give a tax break so you can pay for your kids education, it's a totally different thing to give a tax break so you can sustain a grown man who should be working for himself.
Why are they not demanding the bombardment of Bahrain military, or better, Saudi Arabia military?
Because, ruthless as the Saudi regime is, Gaddafi has imposed a new level of ruthlessness.
There has never existed such mass protests in Saudi Arabia as there has been in Libya in the last few weeks, and the Saudi government has never resorted to mass murder of its citizens.
if a rank-and-file anonymous loyal Lybian soldier of good conscience but no strong political opinions is looking at situation right now, what does the world legally and ethically expect him to be doing right now?
To do what many Libyan soldiers have already done: defect and join the anti-Gaddafi forces.
Protecting civilians means also protecting armed rebels? I'm surprised no one spotted this.
Do the words "legitimate self defense" mean anything to you? Or do you think those civilians should let Gaddafi kill them and go get their quota of virgins in Paradise?
That's because the decision to protect or not protect civilians is essentially 100% correlated with either oil or some sort of important political motive
If oil were the motivation here, Western powers would be fully committed to support Gaddafi, like they do with the regime in Saudi Arabia.
What you didn't mention is that "Muntz admitted his business lost $1,457,000 from April to August 1953,[28] and although he tried to reorganize, Muntz TV filed bankruptcy and went out of business in 1959" (from the same Wikipedia article)
You see, engineers don't sprinkle components at random. Every component in an electronic circuit is there for a reason. If something can be removed, what you have is a defective specification, maybe your circuit is designed to perform a function that's not often used, maybe it's designed to function in a situation that never happens. In that case you can ask the engineer to redesign for looser specifications.
Wait: I thought the free market solved all problems and never needed government intervention.
The Free Market *WOULD* solve all these problems, if it weren't for all that pesky government intervention.
There are few activities so strongly regulated anywhere as the electric power industry. I should know it, for the first five years of my career as an electronics engineer I worked for a power company.
The situation is so bad that when people say the power industry has been "deregulated" somewhere, like in California, for example, the industry is actually still more regulated than any other industry.
Had Free Market forces prevailed in Japan there would exist many interconnection points between the 50hz and 60hz zones. After all, what good is a market if you are unable to buy and sell stuff?
The problem in Japan is not the Free Market, but the fact that the industry was divided in two segments that weren't allowed to trade their product freely among themselves.
you meet someone you believe to be a child then you deserve to get busted and spend the next 10 years behind bars
Then PROVE I believed that fucker was a child.
Now, if YOU think everyone who uses an online chat is a pedophile, then there must be some optics phenomenon here. You are looking at other people through your own distortions.
How do you remember their name a week after you get home from a tiring conference? Write it down perhaps?
And risk a misspelling? No way! You might correct 'Haloran' to 'Halloran', but there's no way you'll be able to reliably recover a badly written email address.
My proposal (I should patent this): put a bar code in your card with your email address. That's the most important piece of ID in today's business world. Anything else can be recovered from that.
That's exactly why they read you the Miranda warning before asking you any questions
So, this means that, like everything else, being "on the internet" makes it different?
I don't suppose the police told this guy "everything you say can be used against you in a court of law, hello, I'm a 13-year-old girl, do you wanna chat?"
Someday a defense lawyer will be able to prove that almost all the "kids hot for sex" on the Internet are not kids.
I don't think you need to go that far. No one can be guilty of a crime that was not committed.
Suppose the police catches someone sitting in a car in front of a bank holding a gun. Can they arrest him for robbing the bank? In this case it wasn't even a true bank, only a building with a sign saying "Bank" but with no money inside.
It's not a crime to feel sexually attracted to a 13-year-old, it's not a crime to chat with an adult that pretends to be a minor.
The correct approach for the police in this case would be to watch the guy. Get a warrant to search his house, computer, and internet activity, monitor his phone and internet connections, follow him, etc. Wait until he tries to contact a true child. Otherwise, he is just someone making fun at a guy who pretends to be a 13-year-old girl. There's no crime in that.
If he has the resources to go all the way, I'm willing to bet the case will be dismissed.
"Because time travel is limited to these special particles, it is not possible for a man to travel back in time and murder one of his parents before he himself is born, for example. However, if scientists could control the production of Higgs singlets, they might be able to send messages to the past or future."
Send a message to a hitman saying "kill X and I will send you the results of any race horse of your choice". How's that for not being able to go back and kill your grandfather?
Maybe they foresaw this situation and put fuel caps on them?
The articles I read are sparse in details, but you must remember that fuel was put into the tanks somehow before launch. They will probably use the same connector to refuel.
Fueling up the satellite is one of the last activities before launch, because it's so dangerous. Besides being explosive, hydrazine is extremely toxic. So toxic that technicians use astronaut suits to do it.
Intelsat's Galaxy 15 satellite was successfully rebooted in December and is responding to commands
Yes, but there are other zombie satellites up there. Galaxy 15 was in the news because it failed with its transmitters working, so it caused interference in communications, but some other satellites are drifting around GEO, creating the need to maneuver active satellites to avoid collisions.
Besides, the ability to refuel and tow away satellites means that there is less need to keep fuel for deorbit. One needs to keep some amount of fuel in reserve to move the satellites to an orbit higher up at the end of its life. The problem is that satellites have no fuel meter, at least none that's very accurate. The remaining fuel is estimated by "book keeping", that is by estimating how much is used in each maneuver.
This method has an accuracy equivalent to about six months, which means six months of lifetime wasted, since you always need to be on the safe side. Being able to refuel, if necessary, the few kg needed for deorbit would mean extending commercial lifetime by that amount of time.
Since the earth is "oblate", which means flattened at the poles, the orbit over the equator isn't stable, it slowly gets inclined at a rate of approximately one degree per year. So-called "north-south" maneuvers are needed to keep the orbit exactly over the equator.
There are also "east-west" maneuvers. The earth is not perfectly symmetrical, rock is denser at some parts than at others, that's why we have ocean and continents. Denser rock sinks, lighter rock floats. The asymmetric gravity field from this difference in density pulls the satellite away from its intended location.
Inclination correction uses about 90% of the fuel needed for station keeping. This means that often older satellites are used in "inclined orbit", when the owner stops doing north-south maneuvers and lifetime can be extended, with some degradation in the services, because the antennas need to track the daily excursion of the satellite north and south of the equator.
Finally, some fuel is needed for deorbit. In order to keep the geostationary orbit uncluttered, the last drops of fuel are used to send the satellite to a "graveyard" orbit, a few hundred kilometers higher up.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess that the transition to 5D means that all the matter that we know (atoms, light, ...), will be destroyed.
Not necessarily. To visualize increasing dimensions, think of a sheet of paper. Two dimensions. Imagine it being progressively crumpled, until it becomes a paper ball. Now it's three dimensional. Everything you wrote on the paper is still intact.
The atom is an amazing thing because it makes people lie so much?
Yes, and the most common lie about the atom is when they try to make it seem much more dangerous than it really is.
why should I have to pay for all of your children's education(s) with my tax dollars in the first place?
Because civilized society has agreed that the burden of providing some essential needs for those who cannot afford them should be shared by everybody.
There are couples, both gay and straight, that want marriage primarily for monetary purposes
I can guarantee you that no straight couple ever got married for the tax breaks, because it doesn't pay enough. But for gay couples that's the only plausible reason for wanting gay marriage regulated by law.
Hi, this is my husband, Tom. Or hi, this is my (business? What's domestic mean?) partner, Tom.
What you call Tom is between you and him, the law has nothing to say about that.
Then there's inheritance rights.
Make a will, it's that simple.
Then there's the power to make important medical decisions.
That's a problem for married couples as well. There has been cases where spouses and blood relatives have fought in court to make such decisions.
And the ability to avoid anti-gay family members from interfering in the most devastating point of your life.
Why do you think there should be a LAW to protect you against that? Do you believe all families approve the marriage choices of all their members? In-laws are very often a delicate subject in any family.
Why do you want tax breaks specifically for having kids, anyway? If you can't afford them, don't have them.
Tell that to the kids whose parents couldn't afford them. It's perfectly possible for you to tell your same-sex lover to get a job, but you cannot tell a child to go back to the womb.
Except the tax breaks aren't for families; married couples without children are eligible for them too
There's a slippery slop there. Many couples plan on having children, they make decisions based on that. To be fair, a couple that does not intend to have children is cheating on the system.
A totally neutral system would do away with all tax breaks for dependents, but it sucks to be born in a family that cannot sustain itself, so we give children a break. They never asked to be born, did they?
Why cant you have several bitches? You can have several cars, several children, several houses.. What about freedom..
Because the supply of bitches is limited and the rich guys would get them all. Children, houses, and cars can be made in unlimited amounts, but not bitches.
On the average, for every bitch that's born, a mofo is born. And every mofo wants at least one bitch (that is if he isn't gay, of course). Do the math.
The question is why marriage should have any legal status at all.
It shouldn't. At least not marriage itself. It's the family that needs legal protection. Think of the children.
The only logical reason for regulated marriage is to create a stable environment for raising children. Otherwise it would be a civil contract like any other.
You can have a partner for whatever purposes you both agree to. You can start a business, a charity, a club, a scientific society, or you can just agree to live together. That's why I think this "gay marriage" thing is so stupid. Unless you intend to raise children it's just a contract like any other.
Until greed comes along. What gay partners want is not recognition, they are after the pensions and tax benefits that were created for families. It's one thing to give a tax break so you can pay for your kids education, it's a totally different thing to give a tax break so you can sustain a grown man who should be working for himself.
If there were a gay gene, they'd have found it by now.
It seems that there's evidence for it. Of course, the genome isn't everything, but it determines what tendencies we will have.
Why are they not demanding the bombardment of Bahrain military, or better, Saudi Arabia military?
Because, ruthless as the Saudi regime is, Gaddafi has imposed a new level of ruthlessness.
There has never existed such mass protests in Saudi Arabia as there has been in Libya in the last few weeks, and the Saudi government has never resorted to mass murder of its citizens.
if a rank-and-file anonymous loyal Lybian soldier of good conscience but no strong political opinions is looking at situation right now, what does the world legally and ethically expect him to be doing right now?
To do what many Libyan soldiers have already done: defect and join the anti-Gaddafi forces.
Protecting civilians means also protecting armed rebels? I'm surprised no one spotted this.
Do the words "legitimate self defense" mean anything to you? Or do you think those civilians should let Gaddafi kill them and go get their quota of virgins in Paradise?
The google news pages should be covered with protests, and I hear crickets...
I'm sure you could get some of your supporters to make those protests. Oh, you have no supporters? How sad.
That's because the decision to protect or not protect civilians is essentially 100% correlated with either oil or some sort of important political motive
If oil were the motivation here, Western powers would be fully committed to support Gaddafi, like they do with the regime in Saudi Arabia.
What you didn't mention is that "Muntz admitted his business lost $1,457,000 from April to August 1953,[28] and although he tried to reorganize, Muntz TV filed bankruptcy and went out of business in 1959" (from the same Wikipedia article)
You see, engineers don't sprinkle components at random. Every component in an electronic circuit is there for a reason. If something can be removed, what you have is a defective specification, maybe your circuit is designed to perform a function that's not often used, maybe it's designed to function in a situation that never happens. In that case you can ask the engineer to redesign for looser specifications.
Removing components at random is just stupid.
I want my god damned flying car!
Ok, here it is.
Wait: I thought the free market solved all problems and never needed government intervention.
The Free Market *WOULD* solve all these problems, if it weren't for all that pesky government intervention.
There are few activities so strongly regulated anywhere as the electric power industry. I should know it, for the first five years of my career as an electronics engineer I worked for a power company.
The situation is so bad that when people say the power industry has been "deregulated" somewhere, like in California, for example, the industry is actually still more regulated than any other industry.
Had Free Market forces prevailed in Japan there would exist many interconnection points between the 50hz and 60hz zones. After all, what good is a market if you are unable to buy and sell stuff?
The problem in Japan is not the Free Market, but the fact that the industry was divided in two segments that weren't allowed to trade their product freely among themselves.
you meet someone you believe to be a child then you deserve to get busted and spend the next 10 years behind bars
Then PROVE I believed that fucker was a child.
Now, if YOU think everyone who uses an online chat is a pedophile, then there must be some optics phenomenon here. You are looking at other people through your own distortions.
How do you remember their name a week after you get home from a tiring conference? Write it down perhaps?
And risk a misspelling? No way! You might correct 'Haloran' to 'Halloran', but there's no way you'll be able to reliably recover a badly written email address.
My proposal (I should patent this): put a bar code in your card with your email address. That's the most important piece of ID in today's business world. Anything else can be recovered from that.
That's exactly why they read you the Miranda warning before asking you any questions
So, this means that, like everything else, being "on the internet" makes it different?
I don't suppose the police told this guy "everything you say can be used against you in a court of law, hello, I'm a 13-year-old girl, do you wanna chat?"
Someday a defense lawyer will be able to prove that almost all the "kids hot for sex" on the Internet are not kids.
I don't think you need to go that far. No one can be guilty of a crime that was not committed.
Suppose the police catches someone sitting in a car in front of a bank holding a gun. Can they arrest him for robbing the bank? In this case it wasn't even a true bank, only a building with a sign saying "Bank" but with no money inside.
It's not a crime to feel sexually attracted to a 13-year-old, it's not a crime to chat with an adult that pretends to be a minor.
The correct approach for the police in this case would be to watch the guy. Get a warrant to search his house, computer, and internet activity, monitor his phone and internet connections, follow him, etc. Wait until he tries to contact a true child. Otherwise, he is just someone making fun at a guy who pretends to be a 13-year-old girl. There's no crime in that.
If he has the resources to go all the way, I'm willing to bet the case will be dismissed.
I bet he would be far more interested to know about the results of the horse race than the results of the race horse.
It's already happening! I could swear I typed the word 'horse' before I typed 'race'...
FTFA:
"Because time travel is limited to these special particles, it is not possible for a man to travel back in time and murder one of his parents before he himself is born, for example. However, if scientists could control the production of Higgs singlets, they might be able to send messages to the past or future."
Send a message to a hitman saying "kill X and I will send you the results of any race horse of your choice". How's that for not being able to go back and kill your grandfather?
Maybe they foresaw this situation and put fuel caps on them?
The articles I read are sparse in details, but you must remember that fuel was put into the tanks somehow before launch. They will probably use the same connector to refuel.
Fueling up the satellite is one of the last activities before launch, because it's so dangerous. Besides being explosive, hydrazine is extremely toxic. So toxic that technicians use astronaut suits to do it.
Intelsat's Galaxy 15 satellite was successfully rebooted in December and is responding to commands
Yes, but there are other zombie satellites up there. Galaxy 15 was in the news because it failed with its transmitters working, so it caused interference in communications, but some other satellites are drifting around GEO, creating the need to maneuver active satellites to avoid collisions.
Besides, the ability to refuel and tow away satellites means that there is less need to keep fuel for deorbit. One needs to keep some amount of fuel in reserve to move the satellites to an orbit higher up at the end of its life. The problem is that satellites have no fuel meter, at least none that's very accurate. The remaining fuel is estimated by "book keeping", that is by estimating how much is used in each maneuver.
This method has an accuracy equivalent to about six months, which means six months of lifetime wasted, since you always need to be on the safe side. Being able to refuel, if necessary, the few kg needed for deorbit would mean extending commercial lifetime by that amount of time.
Since the earth is "oblate", which means flattened at the poles, the orbit over the equator isn't stable, it slowly gets inclined at a rate of approximately one degree per year. So-called "north-south" maneuvers are needed to keep the orbit exactly over the equator.
There are also "east-west" maneuvers. The earth is not perfectly symmetrical, rock is denser at some parts than at others, that's why we have ocean and continents. Denser rock sinks, lighter rock floats. The asymmetric gravity field from this difference in density pulls the satellite away from its intended location.
Inclination correction uses about 90% of the fuel needed for station keeping. This means that often older satellites are used in "inclined orbit", when the owner stops doing north-south maneuvers and lifetime can be extended, with some degradation in the services, because the antennas need to track the daily excursion of the satellite north and south of the equator.
Finally, some fuel is needed for deorbit. In order to keep the geostationary orbit uncluttered, the last drops of fuel are used to send the satellite to a "graveyard" orbit, a few hundred kilometers higher up.
Intelsat is paying $280 million for 1000kg of fuel. Adds up to about $800000/gallon