Precise, yes. Accurate, no. Propagation varies all over the place. I doubt any two places on earth are ever able to get exactly the same time. Close enough for all practical purposes, yes. Exact, no.
That's right. You're already doomed to a career in engineering and science because you think logically and analytically. We're going to cure all that by having you take courses in humanities. Then you'll fit in with the rest of the country, and won't feel so out of place with the government we have.
Besides, no one should conplain about having to take humanities courses. They take very little time for thought, and anyone could pass them.
Sorry guys, but metric is a sub issue. The real issue is the number of people who go through the school system who can't really use either english or metric systems very well. They're really functionally illeterate in making simple measurements, adding them, and so on. Solve that, then worry about which system is in use.
When I was in graduate school, we made our experimental apparatus in metric units on tools, like a milling machine, calibrated in english units. I'm nearly finished building an aircraft that uses metric units, except for hardware, which is in english units. I think you need to be able to use either, and switch back and forth wihtout difficulty. If you can't, you don't really understand either measurement system all that well. But that gets back to the lack of measurement ability that emerges from our schools.
I can see no reason for spending tax dollars to change exisiting things, like road signs, from english to metric. Replace them as they wear out, if this really needs to be done. But then, I can't see any good reason to spend tax dollars on bilingual signs, regardless of the language. And no, English is not the only language I try to speak.
Guys and gals, we made zip guns in Jr. high shop in the 1950s. They might not have been very accurate, but guns they were, and shoot they did. Any attempt to keep people from building and owning guns is a waste of time and money.
We do have the right, not priviledge, to keep and bear arms. Just how many tax dollars are we going to spend to deny rights?
There have been flying cars, such as the Taylor Aerocar, which were certificated by the FAA or its previous agencies. They were built, and a few were flown. Their capabilities were adequately demonstrated. The problem was, almost no one bought them.
There was no legislation problem. You needed a pilots' license to fly, and a drivers' license to drive them. Maintenance had to be done by a certificated aircraft mechanic, because, after all, it was an airplane. Normal flight rules and road rules applied.
I've lost count of the number of "flying car" projects I've seen over the years. Several have been built, and flew fine, but none have ever been a commercial success. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't appear to exist.
It seems to me that this is the typical task of trying to explain technical issues to people without the background and education to understand them. The chances for misunderstanding far outweigh the chances for understanding.
Unless we quit being so sensitive about profiling, and admit certain groups are more prone to terrorism, and monitor them more closely, we are going to be more prone to harassing a lot of innocent people. Since it isn't politically correct to profile, and it's nearly impossible to kill a government agency, my vote is to change the name of the TSA to the Transportation Groping agency. Evidently that's politically correct, since that's what they're doing.
Seriously, how many of us really need this level of blinding internet speed? A lot of us may say we want it, but when it comes to paying for it, that's another matter. It's certainly not a basic right, and not something the government should pay for in whole or part.
It depends on the publication. Things like newsletters get read once, and would be thrown away immediately if they were in print form. But some things, like my airplane magazines, get read in detail now and again in the future. I really want print copies of these: computers are always crashing, and losing material.
Slashdot Mirror
Precise, yes. Accurate, no. Propagation varies all over the place. I doubt any two places on earth are ever able to get exactly the same time. Close enough for all practical purposes, yes. Exact, no.
That's right. You're already doomed to a career in engineering and science because you think logically and analytically. We're going to cure all that by having you take courses in humanities. Then you'll fit in with the rest of the country, and won't feel so out of place with the government we have.
Besides, no one should conplain about having to take humanities courses. They take very little time for thought, and anyone could pass them.
I find it interesting that this was scored as though it were humor. I wasn't joking; I was very serious.
Who kills bad ideas, based on prior experience? Nobody!
Who insures that everyone is working on something productive? You guessed it.
When I was in graduate school, we made our experimental apparatus in metric units on tools, like a milling machine, calibrated in english units. I'm nearly finished building an aircraft that uses metric units, except for hardware, which is in english units. I think you need to be able to use either, and switch back and forth wihtout difficulty. If you can't, you don't really understand either measurement system all that well. But that gets back to the lack of measurement ability that emerges from our schools.
I can see no reason for spending tax dollars to change exisiting things, like road signs, from english to metric. Replace them as they wear out, if this really needs to be done. But then, I can't see any good reason to spend tax dollars on bilingual signs, regardless of the language. And no, English is not the only language I try to speak.
This sounds entirely too much like IBM in the 1960s and 1970s. The user really didn't need to know how things worked; IBM would take care of them.
Guys and gals, we made zip guns in Jr. high shop in the 1950s. They might not have been very accurate, but guns they were, and shoot they did. Any attempt to keep people from building and owning guns is a waste of time and money. We do have the right, not priviledge, to keep and bear arms. Just how many tax dollars are we going to spend to deny rights?
It's simple. You promote them to management.
Quick, bring me a couple of young virgins.
Be thankful we don't get as much government as we pay for.
Revenge of the Harryhausen?
There have been flying cars, such as the Taylor Aerocar, which were certificated by the FAA or its previous agencies. They were built, and a few were flown. Their capabilities were adequately demonstrated. The problem was, almost no one bought them.
There was no legislation problem. You needed a pilots' license to fly, and a drivers' license to drive them. Maintenance had to be done by a certificated aircraft mechanic, because, after all, it was an airplane. Normal flight rules and road rules applied.
What legislation did you have in mind?
I've lost count of the number of "flying car" projects I've seen over the years. Several have been built, and flew fine, but none have ever been a commercial success. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't appear to exist.
Actually, I think they already did this in Switzerland. I don't believe any problems have resulted.
It seems to me that this is the typical task of trying to explain technical issues to people without the background and education to understand them. The chances for misunderstanding far outweigh the chances for understanding.
What do I think? Lots of luck!
Unless we quit being so sensitive about profiling, and admit certain groups are more prone to terrorism, and monitor them more closely, we are going to be more prone to harassing a lot of innocent people. Since it isn't politically correct to profile, and it's nearly impossible to kill a government agency, my vote is to change the name of the TSA to the Transportation Groping agency. Evidently that's politically correct, since that's what they're doing.
Should we thank them, or go looking for some tar and feathers?
I agree! As much as I like sci-fi, I don't think this is a proper place for congress to meddle.
Seriously, how many of us really need this level of blinding internet speed? A lot of us may say we want it, but when it comes to paying for it, that's another matter. It's certainly not a basic right, and not something the government should pay for in whole or part.
But it's working the way it is. The time-honored software way is to fix it.
It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings. Trouble is, she's been really off-key lately.
Besides, it's hard to read a computer in bed.
I'd bet it would be. One of the reasons I want one is the price/capability tradeoff. At $300, it wouldn't be nearly as attractive.
Amazing! You make something available people actually want, and they buy it. No hard push advertising required!