Bush won the mandatory Florida recount as well. The Supreme Court disallowed the hand recount because Florida wouldn't have it completed by the deadline.
Because as everyone knows, getting a fast answer is better than getting a correct one.
(Unless the fast answer is a correct answer you don't like. See: Coleman vs Franken.)
In most situations, I think the tipping point is generally the support -- or at minimum, the lack of opposition -- of the military and/or security service(s). Of course, that just pushes the question back one level: What does it take to get the military and/or security service(s) to walk away from the current regime?
That depends on a mix of factors concerning the priorities of the leadership of services: stability, honor, and personal benefit in terms of power and/or money. The ratio of the mix depends in general on how those leaders came to be leaders, and varies from person to person. Do you appeal to them by convincing them that the current regime can't maintain order? Do you try to make the argument that their honor is not so much about obeying the current regime as about serving the country? Do you convince them that they'd be personally better-off under a new regime?
There's some truth to that, but -- assuming the election was stolen -- it looks like even those small differences were enough for Khomeini to step in, which points up just how short he wants the leash to be.
The only way you can disagree with me is if you are under the influence of the Great Satan. So either you agree with me, or you are obviously evil. What better argument could you want?
Huh. Why does that argument sound vaguely familiar?
They are taking other measures as well; there are several reports that a speech by President Obama (who has yet to speak in support of the protesters)...
Well, yes and no. He has spoken in support of the protestors speaking out, while being careful not to publically agree with what they're saying.
... was translated as a speech calling for revolution and the overthrow of the regime. This lets Iran claim that the protests are the result of meddling by the Western powers.
This is why Obama has tried to be very careful about what he says. Given that there is a history of meddling by the US (and others), anything he says is going to be seen through that filter. People calling for stronger statements by Obama seem to be unaware of that history... or are pretending to be.
It's sort of like wearing a web-condom: used to be that going bare-browser was mostly safe as long as you were careful who you interacted with, but nowadays even the pretty ones can burn you, so your best bet is to just wrap your tool... with a sandbox. (I'm still working on the analogy)
Try adding a reference to "extensions". That'll help.
You know, BusinessWeek asked me about Apple potentially open sourcing the iPhone over a year ago. Since then: nothing out of Apple, despite mounting pressure from projects like Android that are vying for Appleâ(TM)s throne.
They might be vying for Apple's throne someday. Right now? They're vying for scraps outside the royal kitchen.
Though I am not an electrical engineer / physicist and I don't know if the inverse square law is necessarily applicable.
IANAn electrical engineer nor physicist, either. But I think given that the power source and target are theoretically coupled, the power is being directed rather than broadcasted. The inverse square law applies to power being broadcasted.
Come on folks its time to have fun with the arts students again.
Of course turnabout is fair play. I mean, most people here probably think the music they listen to, the movies they go see, etc, etc, is the good stuff.
Heh. You should see the scenes backstage at the so-called award ceremonies. "My god, they fell for this crap again!?"
I don't think our current economic principals allow us to work on projects of this magnitude.
Well, it's pretty obvious we need to change our current economic principals anyway, so maybe we should keep possibilities like this in mind while we do it.
Of all of the technical and political roadblocks to building a space elevator, both of these seem quite minor in comparison. This is kind of like saying "I was going to bench press this Hummer H2, but since you added a fuzzy steering wheel cover it's going to be completely impossible now."
Well, sure. How am I supposed to get a good grip on the damn thing if it has a fuzzy steering wheel cover?
Ah. Thank you for your deeply insightful and very informative response. I understand the design's failings much better now. In retrospect, even I should have seen them.
From the article: "We discussed their plans to reach suborbital space and scale this up to orbital flights..."
They didn't go into any detail on the scale-up.
What was there about what little information given about the vehicle that suggests to you that the vehicle "does not appear to be anywhere close to capable of reaching orbit"? I'm not an aerospace engineer, but it seems like there's too little information to say how close it is.
Funny, though she was smart enough to not just toss the mistake away as worthless. That's the trick with accidental discoveries -- recognizing that the result is valuable even if it isn't the result you were looking for.
(And the lab is still working on better solar cells.)
I am sure there are people weak minded enough to have their views changed by what these people say, so I would kind of like to know what they are saying.
I once heard someone in advertising say that some of the easiest people to manipulate are the ones who are convinced that they're too smart (or whatever) to be manipulated.
Slashdot Mirror
The Sunday Express is hardly our fair isle's most reliable newspaper.
What?! The Daily Express is The World's Greatest Newspaper! It says so right on the front page!
Bush won the mandatory Florida recount as well. The Supreme Court disallowed the hand recount because Florida wouldn't have it completed by the deadline.
Because as everyone knows, getting a fast answer is better than getting a correct one.
(Unless the fast answer is a correct answer you don't like. See: Coleman vs Franken.)
In most situations, I think the tipping point is generally the support -- or at minimum, the lack of opposition -- of the military and/or security service(s). Of course, that just pushes the question back one level: What does it take to get the military and/or security service(s) to walk away from the current regime?
That depends on a mix of factors concerning the priorities of the leadership of services: stability, honor, and personal benefit in terms of power and/or money. The ratio of the mix depends in general on how those leaders came to be leaders, and varies from person to person. Do you appeal to them by convincing them that the current regime can't maintain order? Do you try to make the argument that their honor is not so much about obeying the current regime as about serving the country? Do you convince them that they'd be personally better-off under a new regime?
There's some truth to that, but -- assuming the election was stolen -- it looks like even those small differences were enough for Khomeini to step in, which points up just how short he wants the leash to be.
The only way you can disagree with me is if you are under the influence of the Great Satan. So either you agree with me, or you are obviously evil. What better argument could you want?
Huh. Why does that argument sound vaguely familiar?
They are taking other measures as well; there are several reports that a speech by President Obama (who has yet to speak in support of the protesters) ...
Well, yes and no. He has spoken in support of the protestors speaking out, while being careful not to publically agree with what they're saying.
... was translated as a speech calling for revolution and the overthrow of the regime. This lets Iran claim that the protests are the result of meddling by the Western powers.
This is why Obama has tried to be very careful about what he says. Given that there is a history of meddling by the US (and others), anything he says is going to be seen through that filter. People calling for stronger statements by Obama seem to be unaware of that history ... or are pretending to be.
And free to go on unemployment after you do.
Union membership strongly correlates with how well the government enforces regulations against things like firing people for union organizing.
Wealth disparity in society has a strong inverse correlation with union membership.
(Sure, correlation causation ... but the connection looks a lot more likely than the solar cycle.)
If only I lived 3-5 years from now...
Hey, if you live long enough, it could happen.
Don't laugh, or you'll get your cable cut too.
How will Disney survive without Steve Jobs? Where will our children go for disneyfied stories and cheap-shit tie-in merchandise?
WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?
...the whole sharing brains thing was just too messy. Everyone always went home all sticky.
The real problem was all the zombie processes.
It's sort of like wearing a web-condom: used to be that going bare-browser was mostly safe as long as you were careful who you interacted with, but nowadays even the pretty ones can burn you, so your best bet is to just wrap your tool ... with a sandbox. (I'm still working on the analogy)
Try adding a reference to "extensions". That'll help.
They might be vying for Apple's throne someday. Right now? They're vying for scraps outside the royal kitchen.
Though I am not an electrical engineer / physicist and I don't know if the inverse square law is necessarily applicable.
IANAn electrical engineer nor physicist, either. But I think given that the power source and target are theoretically coupled, the power is being directed rather than broadcasted. The inverse square law applies to power being broadcasted.
Come on folks its time to have fun with the arts students again.
Of course turnabout is fair play. I mean, most people here probably think the music they listen to, the movies they go see, etc, etc, is the good stuff.
Heh. You should see the scenes backstage at the so-called award ceremonies. "My god, they fell for this crap again!?"
I don't think our current economic principals allow us to work on projects of this magnitude.
Well, it's pretty obvious we need to change our current economic principals anyway, so maybe we should keep possibilities like this in mind while we do it.
Of all of the technical and political roadblocks to building a space elevator, both of these seem quite minor in comparison. This is kind of like saying "I was going to bench press this Hummer H2, but since you added a fuzzy steering wheel cover it's going to be completely impossible now."
Well, sure. How am I supposed to get a good grip on the damn thing if it has a fuzzy steering wheel cover?
I can believe many things, but a world without causility is not one of them.
I'm going to have known that you would say that.
Ah. Thank you for your deeply insightful and very informative response. I understand the design's failings much better now. In retrospect, even I should have seen them.
From the article: "We discussed their plans to reach suborbital space and scale this up to orbital flights ..."
They didn't go into any detail on the scale-up.
What was there about what little information given about the vehicle that suggests to you that the vehicle "does not appear to be anywhere close to capable of reaching orbit"? I'm not an aerospace engineer, but it seems like there's too little information to say how close it is.
Any information release by Apple that doesn't occur during a Special Event seems to be suspect.
("In other news, Steve Jobs quietly blows his nose. Will this fuel more concerns about his health?")
Funny, though she was smart enough to not just toss the mistake away as worthless. That's the trick with accidental discoveries -- recognizing that the result is valuable even if it isn't the result you were looking for.
(And the lab is still working on better solar cells.)
... it's Boris.
I am sure there are people weak minded enough to have their views changed by what these people say, so I would kind of like to know what they are saying.
I once heard someone in advertising say that some of the easiest people to manipulate are the ones who are convinced that they're too smart (or whatever) to be manipulated.
They don't have "analysts" telling me what my reaction is.
C-SPAN