Naval Rules of the Road always hold that the sub has the responsibility for safe navigation. The logic being that a sub should know if there is a surface vessel nearby, but a surface vessel may not know there is a sub nearby.
The impact damage I see is on the port side of the leading edge of the sail. If the sub had struck the Hartford, the damage would have been spread more equally between port and starboard. In addition, the sail itself is bent where it is attached to the main hull, leaning to the starboard.
Yeah, but this is more like 10 degress. And on the port side, you can see where the sail has been torn away from the hull. In the hi-res pic, you can even see part of the #1 scope through the crack.
Avoid Netgear at all costs.... I've got two, once GigE, and one 100/E. They suck, not because of the throughput, but because of the super crappy Z-san service that you have to use to access them across the network.
I've also got a couple of Western Digital My Book World II's, both GigE, and they work just peachy. I just finished tranferring 1Tb of data across my network, and it took about 36 hours. Bunches of 350 and 700 Mb files. They each take about 3 mins to transfer across the network.
Hell, even when I lived in Los Angeles, I had trouble finding a radio station I wanted to listen to. KPCC had a nice old-time radio show on Sunday Nights, Y107 had no DJs and modern Rock for a few months before they went Spanish. Star 98.7 I could listen to during the mid-day, but their morning and afternoon shows were more talk than music... And I never was a big KISS-FM fan. The WAVE played light jazz, but after a week you heard everything often enough you could whistle along.
I got XM, and I flip between Sonic Theater, 80's, BPM, or Old-Time radio, depending on my mood.
Then I moved to SD. 15 country stations, 2 pop and rock ones, a couple of oldies... Nothing I want to listen to anyways. So I stick with XM.
I drive a 1986 Ford Bronco. I repainted it myself, but otherwise no exterior work has been done. No rust, no dents, all the original chrome is in place. Works great.
I've always heard the complaints about Fords, but I've own them all my life, and never had a problem with them.
I saw the first episode that Fox aired, and the whole sci-fi group robs a western train really didn't make sense to me, and I skipped the rest of the series.
In the months before the movie came out, I got the DVD series as a gift and watched the actual pilot. That explained a LOT of stuff, and set things in motion for the rest of the series. I sat through and watched the whole series over the course of three days, and I gotta tell you, it was a hell of a lot better than what the weird train robbery episode.
Find the series, give it a watch. You'll probably like it.
I believe at one point I used the phrase 'moral authority' in connection with complaining.
Everyone can complain about anything. Comes with the Free Speech bit.
But not being American, complaining about our electoral process... you can talk, but don't be suprised when you're ignored.
It'd be like me complaining about Tory's and Libs and who committed fraud and whose hand was in Blair's pocket or somesuch.
Also, one comment about the US electoral process. What a lot of people, US-ians included don't understand, is that the people don't elect the president. The states do. All this electtion stuff is to give the states an idea of for whom their residents would like to have them vote. The peoples direct representatives are the Congress and Senate. Not the President. Too many people forget that.
No, you have it backwards. And reveal the downside of popular democracy. If everyone votes for their bests interests, not for the common good (however you choose to define it) then yeah, the morjority wants will be voted in everytime.
That's why the US is democratic republic. The people don't vote on every issue. The people vote for other people to represent their desires on various issues.
If you don't bother to vote for a representative, then what gives you the moral right to complain about the choices any of those representatives make?
By being given the opportunity to vote, we're invited to participate in our electoral process.
If you decline to vote, then you really have no recourse to complain about the results of that process, do you? You had your chance to be heard and decided you had other things to do.
I call BS. My 1 BDRM apartment in Reseda was $500/month. My 2 BDRM in Van Nuys was $975 a month. Both are suburbs of Los Angeles. I was a contract geek, making $18/hr and I was getting along just peachy. Call it $37K/yr.
What insult? I use the term in an exact sense. If the fella can't be bothered to look up the term to use it accurately, then I belive it describes him pretty well.
Let's put it another way. No one, and I mean, no one, in the US military or intelligence services uses WMD's to mean ONLY nukes. NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) weapons have been treated as the same class of weapon since the 50's. Sure, average people mostly think of the nuclear kind, but to quote Mr. Montoya... "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
"Nearly 90 percent of research and development dollars are spent on creating technologies that serve the wealthiest 10 percent of the world's population"
And I see nothing wrong with that at all. They're the wealthiest 10% for a reason, i.e., they're doing something right.
Please, every Third World nation could drop off the face of the planet and the movers as shakers of the world (Europe, North America, Korea, Japan and China) would not even notice. Probably not even care. The planet sure would smell better. Unwashed masses, indeed.
Oh yeah, there seemed to be a game running 24/7 on WESTPAC on the 721 boat. Just the players would switch off at change-of-watch. I couldn't join in until I passed my quals, of course.
This was a known, failed satellite that was coming down in an unknown, possibly populated area. It still had a full load of hydrazine, which is poisonous. The satellite was already in a low orbit, and any debris from the missile impact would deorbit in a short period of time.
The Chinese shot a shut-down satellite that was in a stable orbit approx 528 miles up. They created over 4000 pieces of debris in the same orbit, half of them over 4 inches in size.
I was thinking along the lines of physical, yes. But still, under the 'severe pain or suffering' clause, I still don't see how water-boarding is torture.
A) Agreed. Being opposed to federal legislation regulating marijuana is not the same as being in favor of it. All he's saying is that any question of legality of the use of marijauna should be left to the individual states. And that's a stance I agree with. Now, when SD goes to vote on legalizing marijauna, I'll vote to support it.
B) We'ew not talking about legislating a different lifestyle. We're talking about specific solutions to specific issues that the citizens in different states address and solve differently. And if someone can come up with a better way to do something, and there's a need to legislate something in the future, they are more than welcome to call a vote of their fellow citizens to implement it.
C) Torture? What, this water-boarding stuff? Duress, I agree. But torture? Show me the wounds and the scars left by water-boarding, and I might grant you torture. Until then, it's not even worth the breath to discuss. Detention and wiretapping, I'll give you. But again, those are not the faliures of the Constitution, that's the failure of the current administration and how it interprets the Constitution. In other words, it's a software problem.
D) Seperation of Church and State? Hmmm.. That's a grey area. First of all, the Freedom of Religion clause in the Constitution refers to Congress (i.e. the Federal Government), so the States are free to legislate their own rules. Second, Freedom of Religion does not explicitly mean separation of Church and State. Yes, quite a few interpret it that way, but like I said, it's a grey area. Gay Marriage Ban -- Same thing. The Constitution is mute on that point, so the States are free to set up any rules they like. Abortion is the same way. And you are really stretching the concept to claim that police / guard brutality is a state-sanctioned process, rather than individual or departmental excesses / abuses.
Do you get the trend here? States are not some nameless, faceless organizations that are mysterious and all-powerfull. They are made up of people, directly representing their communities and constituients. They do not operate in a vacumn. Case in point... South Dakota's legislature attempted to pass a ban on abortion. People cried foul, circulated a petition to put the issue on the the ballot, and the whole issue was put to a vote. It was close, but the law was repealed. See? That's how it's supposed to work. Even when state legislatures try to sneak something by, there are ways to keep them in check. Checks and balances?
Since the Constitution is mute on the point of marijuana, the Right to legislate and control its usage is left to the States. Each state can choose its own rules, based on what its citizens own votes.
Speaking on Objectivity, let me alter the question slightly. I picked those two states somewhat at random, a state with a small population and a state with a huge population. Instead, let me mention two states of which I have personal experience.. South Dakota and California. I've lived well over a dozen years in each one, and to this day travel between the two fairly often.
The needs and desires of the citizens of South Dakota are worlds different than the needs and desires of the citizens of California. This is not conjecture, this is not personal opinion, this is a direct observation.
Not protecting Human Rights? Now you're just being silly. Our Constitution has been the beacon of Human Rights and dignities for over two centuries. The document was crafted far in ahead of the attitudes for the day and took society a while to catch up (Slavery, Women's Rights, etc...) but in the end they came around. The questions in front of today's administration are serious ones, but they are not problems with the Constitution itself, but of rather definining any exceptions and the implementaion thereof. At this time there are no stories of States trampling on the Constitution, so any what-if conjectures that you raise are merely that, conjectures.
The only parts of the Federal Government that the Libertarians want to dismantle are those portions that grew outside of the Constitution's Mandate.
If you want the Libertarians to be serious about enforcing Civil Rights, add that power specifically to the Constitution. That's all.
It's not about economics, civil rights, or any fancy ideals... All it's about is what's written in the Constitution. None of this nonsense about a 'Living Constitution'. It means what it says. And if you don't like what it says, the Constitution has a built-in mechanism for being altered. Simply follow the procedure that's already been established.
That is the core of their stance. The Federal Government can ONLY do what the Constitution ALLOWS it to do. No more, no less.
Slashdot Mirror
No one ever gets it right.
100 men go down. 51 couples come up.
Somebody's always cheating.
(I can get away with saying it, since I used to punch holes in the Pacific for a living)
I knew the I-boats had hardened sails, but I didn't know the details. 721 sure didn't.
That's the BRA-34, I think. Seems to me it isn't fully raised. As I recall the fairing has a bit more give to it, unlike the scopes.
Naval Rules of the Road always hold that the sub has the responsibility for safe navigation. The logic being that a sub should know if there is a surface vessel nearby, but a surface vessel may not know there is a sub nearby.
The impact damage I see is on the port side of the leading edge of the sail. If the sub had struck the Hartford, the damage would have been spread more equally between port and starboard. In addition, the sail itself is bent where it is attached to the main hull, leaning to the starboard.
Yeah, but this is more like 10 degress. And on the port side, you can see where the sail has been torn away from the hull. In the hi-res pic, you can even see part of the #1 scope through the crack.
Yeah:
Here's #1 and
#2 and
#3.
I caught the answers to 2 and 3. But what about #1? That one escaped me.
Avoid Netgear at all costs.... I've got two, once GigE, and one 100/E. They suck, not because of the throughput, but because of the super crappy Z-san service that you have to use to access them across the network.
I've also got a couple of Western Digital My Book World II's, both GigE, and they work just peachy. I just finished tranferring 1Tb of data across my network, and it took about 36 hours. Bunches of 350 and 700 Mb files. They each take about 3 mins to transfer across the network.
Hell, even when I lived in Los Angeles, I had trouble finding a radio station I wanted to listen to. KPCC had a nice old-time radio show on Sunday Nights, Y107 had no DJs and modern Rock for a few months before they went Spanish. Star 98.7 I could listen to during the mid-day, but their morning and afternoon shows were more talk than music... And I never was a big KISS-FM fan. The WAVE played light jazz, but after a week you heard everything often enough you could whistle along.
I got XM, and I flip between Sonic Theater, 80's, BPM, or Old-Time radio, depending on my mood.
Then I moved to SD. 15 country stations, 2 pop and rock ones, a couple of oldies... Nothing I want to listen to anyways. So I stick with XM.
I drive a 1986 Ford Bronco. I repainted it myself, but otherwise no exterior work has been done. No rust, no dents, all the original chrome is in place. Works great.
I've always heard the complaints about Fords, but I've own them all my life, and never had a problem with them.
First episode that aired, or the actual pilot?
I saw the first episode that Fox aired, and the whole sci-fi group robs a western train really didn't make sense to me, and I skipped the rest of the series.
In the months before the movie came out, I got the DVD series as a gift and watched the actual pilot. That explained a LOT of stuff, and set things in motion for the rest of the series. I sat through and watched the whole series over the course of three days, and I gotta tell you, it was a hell of a lot better than what the weird train robbery episode.
Find the series, give it a watch. You'll probably like it.
I believe at one point I used the phrase 'moral authority' in connection with complaining.
Everyone can complain about anything. Comes with the Free Speech bit.
But not being American, complaining about our electoral process... you can talk, but don't be suprised when you're ignored.
It'd be like me complaining about Tory's and Libs and who committed fraud and whose hand was in Blair's pocket or somesuch.
Also, one comment about the US electoral process. What a lot of people, US-ians included don't understand, is that the people don't elect the president. The states do. All this electtion stuff is to give the states an idea of for whom their residents would like to have them vote. The peoples direct representatives are the Congress and Senate. Not the President. Too many people forget that.
No, you have it backwards. And reveal the downside of popular democracy. If everyone votes for their bests interests, not for the common good (however you choose to define it) then yeah, the morjority wants will be voted in everytime.
That's why the US is democratic republic. The people don't vote on every issue. The people vote for other people to represent their desires on various issues.
If you don't bother to vote for a representative, then what gives you the moral right to complain about the choices any of those representatives make?
By being given the opportunity to vote, we're invited to participate in our electoral process.
If you decline to vote, then you really have no recourse to complain about the results of that process, do you? You had your chance to be heard and decided you had other things to do.
I call BS. My 1 BDRM apartment in Reseda was $500/month. My 2 BDRM in Van Nuys was $975 a month. Both are suburbs of Los Angeles. I was a contract geek, making $18/hr and I was getting along just peachy. Call it $37K/yr.
What insult? I use the term in an exact sense. If the fella can't be bothered to look up the term to use it accurately, then I belive it describes him pretty well.
Wiki has a pretty good writeup on the terminolgy.
Let's put it another way. No one, and I mean, no one, in the US military or intelligence services uses WMD's to mean ONLY nukes. NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) weapons have been treated as the same class of weapon since the 50's. Sure, average people mostly think of the nuclear kind, but to quote Mr. Montoya... "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Moron.
A Weapon of Mass Destruction is defined as a Nuclear, Biological (ex, anthrax), or Chemical weapon (ex, mustard gas).
Saddam's chemical weapons are most certainly weapons of mass destruction.
Umm... Math?
8 x 1.36 = 10.88, not 130+. Sure, if you did that EVERY DAY, you'd hit a 250 Gb cap somewhere around day 22.
"Nearly 90 percent of research and development dollars are spent on creating technologies that serve the wealthiest 10 percent of the world's population"
And I see nothing wrong with that at all. They're the wealthiest 10% for a reason, i.e., they're doing something right.
Please, every Third World nation could drop off the face of the planet and the movers as shakers of the world (Europe, North America, Korea, Japan and China) would not even notice. Probably not even care. The planet sure would smell better. Unwashed masses, indeed.
Used to live in PGH, they were MAC machines there, too. Took me awhile to catch on to what other folks meant.
Now I live out in the midwest, and when I slip and ask for a MAC machine, no one has any idea to what I'm referring.
Oh yeah, there seemed to be a game running 24/7 on WESTPAC on the 721 boat. Just the players would switch off at change-of-watch. I couldn't join in until I passed my quals, of course.
EXACT same thing? I beg to differ.
This was a known, failed satellite that was coming down in an unknown, possibly populated area. It still had a full load of hydrazine, which is poisonous. The satellite was already in a low orbit, and any debris from the missile impact would deorbit in a short period of time.
The Chinese shot a shut-down satellite that was in a stable orbit approx 528 miles up. They created over 4000 pieces of debris in the same orbit, half of them over 4 inches in size.
The only dick that's waving around here is you.
I was thinking along the lines of physical, yes. But still, under the 'severe pain or suffering' clause, I still don't see how water-boarding is torture.
A) Agreed. Being opposed to federal legislation regulating marijuana is not the same as being in favor of it. All he's saying is that any question of legality of the use of marijauna should be left to the individual states. And that's a stance I agree with. Now, when SD goes to vote on legalizing marijauna, I'll vote to support it.
B) We'ew not talking about legislating a different lifestyle. We're talking about specific solutions to specific issues that the citizens in different states address and solve differently. And if someone can come up with a better way to do something, and there's a need to legislate something in the future, they are more than welcome to call a vote of their fellow citizens to implement it.
C) Torture? What, this water-boarding stuff? Duress, I agree. But torture? Show me the wounds and the scars left by water-boarding, and I might grant you torture. Until then, it's not even worth the breath to discuss. Detention and wiretapping, I'll give you. But again, those are not the faliures of the Constitution, that's the failure of the current administration and how it interprets the Constitution. In other words, it's a software problem.
D) Seperation of Church and State? Hmmm.. That's a grey area. First of all, the Freedom of Religion clause in the Constitution refers to Congress (i.e. the Federal Government), so the States are free to legislate their own rules. Second, Freedom of Religion does not explicitly mean separation of Church and State. Yes, quite a few interpret it that way, but like I said, it's a grey area. Gay Marriage Ban -- Same thing. The Constitution is mute on that point, so the States are free to set up any rules they like. Abortion is the same way. And you are really stretching the concept to claim that police / guard brutality is a state-sanctioned process, rather than individual or departmental excesses / abuses.
Do you get the trend here? States are not some nameless, faceless organizations that are mysterious and all-powerfull. They are made up of people, directly representing their communities and constituients. They do not operate in a vacumn. Case in point... South Dakota's legislature attempted to pass a ban on abortion. People cried foul, circulated a petition to put the issue on the the ballot, and the whole issue was put to a vote. It was close, but the law was repealed. See? That's how it's supposed to work. Even when state legislatures try to sneak something by, there are ways to keep them in check. Checks and balances?
Since the Constitution is mute on the point of marijuana, the Right to legislate and control its usage is left to the States. Each state can choose its own rules, based on what its citizens own votes.
Speaking on Objectivity, let me alter the question slightly. I picked those two states somewhat at random, a state with a small population and a state with a huge population. Instead, let me mention two states of which I have personal experience.. South Dakota and California. I've lived well over a dozen years in each one, and to this day travel between the two fairly often.
The needs and desires of the citizens of South Dakota are worlds different than the needs and desires of the citizens of California. This is not conjecture, this is not personal opinion, this is a direct observation.
Not protecting Human Rights? Now you're just being silly. Our Constitution has been the beacon of Human Rights and dignities for over two centuries. The document was crafted far in ahead of the attitudes for the day and took society a while to catch up (Slavery, Women's Rights, etc...) but in the end they came around. The questions in front of today's administration are serious ones, but they are not problems with the Constitution itself, but of rather definining any exceptions and the implementaion thereof. At this time there are no stories of States trampling on the Constitution, so any what-if conjectures that you raise are merely that, conjectures.
The only parts of the Federal Government that the Libertarians want to dismantle are those portions that grew outside of the Constitution's Mandate.
If you want the Libertarians to be serious about enforcing Civil Rights, add that power specifically to the Constitution. That's all.
It's not about economics, civil rights, or any fancy ideals... All it's about is what's written in the Constitution. None of this nonsense about a 'Living Constitution'. It means what it says. And if you don't like what it says, the Constitution has a built-in mechanism for being altered. Simply follow the procedure that's already been established.
That is the core of their stance. The Federal Government can ONLY do what the Constitution ALLOWS it to do. No more, no less.