People sometimes really don't appreciate the difference in scale between a company like Microsoft and one like Mandriva
True enough. People talk about the ultimate triumph of Linux, and how Microsoft is coming apart or failing, and meanwhile, Microsoft makes more money in one day than one of the most reputable distributions of Linux has made, well, ever.
you shouldn't "feel the need" nor stick your bloody nose in other people business - this is exactly why you the whole world hates you
Actually, the world loves us. Everybody wants to be an American. Look at how many millions emigrate to the United States every year!
As far as sticking our noses into other people's business, does that imply that you are Chinese and view American protection of Taiwan as some sort of "other people's business" If so, could you kindly answer the readers on this board exactly what business China has in Tibet? Or are you even allowed? If you are Chinese, and you won't answer that, then you can take your righteousness, arrogance, and exports, and shove them up your ass. China may have more people than the United States, and may someday have a greater economy, but the United States will always have enough nuclear weapons to kill all of you communist sons of bitches.
Don't ever forget that.
When I run for Senate in the United States, I will advocate the construction of enough nuclear weapons to exterminate humanity. If people want to attack the USA, we can and will be able to destroy the entire world.
dear American moron, the only "War On Terror" is in your head.
Um, can you explain why me any American should feel the need to defend you Taiwanese from the "real" China? You can't defend yourselves, and China knows it.
The whole proclaimed need for communications surveillance and arbitary invasions of ideological nations is because there's not a practical warning and defense system against some jackass carrying a bomb.
Now, there is.
If small, portable MRIs can be mass produced, we could have simple scanners that you step through in key areas, and quickly identify if you have explosives on your person. There's no need for trying to figure out who might try and blow someone or something up. Instead, we'll just be able to catch people with explosives as they walk down the street.
The implications of this sort of capability are far reaching. If the state can effectively monitor explosives themselves, there's no need to even really spend too much effort chasing after people, and as such, doesn't have to take draconian measures to protect itself. Empires have again become possible. If the USA had thousands of these things in Iraq, ringing check points and troop locations, or even, if possible, scanning ahead of convoys, then, the only weapon terrorists have would be effectively eliminated. A guy carries explosives somewhere, and he gets caught. Perhaps a state could even follow people buying chemical precursers. RDX (the stuff used to make C4), for example, has some stuff that's rather unusual in its own right. Perhaps a state could follow people that have explosives, for example, if a weapons maker is actually trying to bring parts to the leader of a cell for distribution, you could let him or her actually transport the explosives, and tail him, and bust the larger cell up.
Checkmate, terrorists across the globe. The Capitalist imperialists are about to take away your only weapon. Of course, the downside is, is that, if the third world suddenly has no weapon against a colonial occupation, then, why, one might ask, would we not occupy the third world? If Iraq was only 20 billion a year, there were few casualties, and pumping loads of oil, how many people would really care.
Within our lifetimes, technology such as this will allow the first world to carve up the third. It is inevitable.
Amazon.com recommends "How to Blow Yourself Up Destroy His Enemy Western Christian Israel Loving Capitalist Apostates And Cash In With A Big Virgin Bonus."
Everyone seems to be knocking detroit for how and what they build, but, until very recently, no one has ever manufactured anything as complicated and at the scale of the Big Three. Those that scale up to GM, suddenly find themselves with GM's problems, and they don't do that much better, if at all. Toyota quality, for example, has plumetted as they ramp up production to be #1.
It's one thing to build a piece of software or even a PC, but try building something that people will sit in going 70+ mph for 10 years in generally absolute mechanical safety, and then fit that to real physical limits on weight, power, strength, and see how you do.
It's no different than how software people trying to build rockets have run into a hailstorm of problems. Elan, the guy building the Falcon rockets, has made a bunch of promises and we're still waiting for a launch. Similarly, Carmack and Co have built some interesting gadgets but they tend to blow up an aweful lot. Both of them have said, as of late, that geez, rocket science really is hard.
Surprise - when your test cycle is governed by the pace of a machine shop or a foundry and a part that breaks or fails, rather than 5 minutes of compile and run, building any system takes considerably longer and requires more money.
I pretty much live in a continual jumble of thoughts, and then somehow fit them all together into a single picture, where both hold together. Contradiction! I used to be horrified of internal inconsistency and contradiction, and now, I just don't care, and take the whole jumbled mess for what it is.
The whole study is a joke because it assumes that body mass index is a valid measure of obesity, and it isn't. The only real way to tell how fat you are is to measure your body fat percentage, usually with calipers although some new scales claim to be able to do it electrically.
I lift weights, and I'm at the higher side of the BMI because I've got a bit more muscle mass. Yet, according to that study, I'd be "fat". And I'm not even particularly big. If you got a man who was lifting since their teens into middle age, he could easily have 20 - 40 pounds more muscle than the average joe.
It's wrong to teach BMI in schools. It's wrong to use it as a measure. If you want to know fat, break out the calipers. Anything less, is wrong, and anything based on it, is absurd.
I wrote a 3d shooter called Independent. You can download it from http://www.mightyware.com/independent.htm. It's shareware, but, since all of you folks put up with my loony rants, the registration code is 1138. Enjoy!
All any so-called crackpot needs to do, to prove his or her alternate theory of matter correct, is to build his or her anti-gravity machine, reverse the flow of heat from cold to hot, or do something simple and repeatable that shocks us into a new way of looking at physics. If entropy is wrong, gravity is wrong, electricity is wrong, then, let's see the new gadget that proves it. Or, barring that, point to the heavens and make a prediction about something we haven't seen before, and do so with math that is consistent with the math that we already have. The steps are there.
You make it sound like a bad thing, and that ivory tower guardians of cryptic scrolls are the true scientists. You have it all backwards
No, not at all. I think you are making the assumption that I mean to say that sharks are bad. Sharks aren't bad, they are sharks. Get it?
The guy I was replying to implied that scientists had a vested interest in propping up the cryptic scrolls. I merely called scientists sharks sniffing for blood, not to make a value judgement, but just as an example of how eager they are to the contrary. I mean, I think every physicist out there has some vision of outdoing Einstein, every Biologist trumping Darwin. Sure, if you roll out with the claim that you have a "new theory of everything", the academic community is going to come after you.. and they have to, because, the "new theory of everything" has to fit all that is already known to be true and you have to prove that you know what you are talking about.
But you can cut through all of that red tape with an experiment that shocks people into thinking that you might be onto something. Einstein did it twice, off the top of my head, when he explained the photoelectric effect, then, predicted the starlight getting shifted by the mass of the sun, and not only said it would get shifted, but gave a pretty accurate number as to how much that starlight would be shifted, because he had the math to back him up. So out of the gate, he had a real model, and a real prediction, and so, once his prediction came up roses, everyone could take his math and come up with other ways to test it.
The growth rate could be proportional to 1/r^2 on a galactic scale, but diverge from that on an intergalactic scale.
I think everyone throwing out 1/r^2 needs to really think about what it means. You don't need to be a hyperphysics guy to sort this out. The idea is really simple, is that, if you have a point source of some effect, radiating out equally in all directions, its effect would diminish as to the square of the distance. This "law" is really just a model that's a consequence of two things - one is that the source of the effect is essentially a point for purposes of calculation, and the other is that the effect is equally distributed over that area.
For gravity not dissipate over 1/r^2, then, it follows that in any of those systems that the distribution is not geometrically uniform. From there, we have to ask ourselves, well, why could that be?
1) It could be that gravity is not exactly a point source... or, to put it another way, that even over a cosmological distance, a gravity well is not evenly shaped. Thus, the force of gravity 90 degrees around and 2 light years from a point source is different from the force of gravity at 270 degrees around and 2 light years from the same source because the point is not actually a point, and a distance where it matters.
If not a point then? Then what shape would you choose? And you do have to choose carefully as there is an aweful lot of experimental evidence that says a point source indeed works 99.99% of the time. Here comes the heavy math. All math is, in physics, is a tool to describe the shapes of things. I'm not a math guy, but the gist of relativity is that Einstein used a new kind of math to describe curves in multiple dimensions to describe how space and time interact. Hooray for Einstein!
So, if you are that smart, with that formula of yours in mind that describes the new geometry of gravity, you ought to be able to observe it. You should be able to see telltale signs of it in the orbits of our planets in our solar system, unless your gravity formula predisposes a mixture of mattter or scale outside of what's in our system. But then, astronomy can help you, as, you can point a telescope anywhere and find some sort of a signal that matches your prediction. If that were the case, then you would be hailed a hero.
2) Gravity is amplified and or dissipated due to some unknown interaction with some other gravity "field", or some other sort of matter. Here again, you'd need to break out the heavy math and find some sort of a model that covers everything we do know is true about gravity, which is a lot, and then tacks on your stuff at the extreme. With that model, you can again then devise experiments to test it.
In both cases, notice that there's no conspiracy involved. Instead, to do physics, you basically just
a) have the insight and imagination to see what is going on in the world. b) have the mathematical tools to describe that vision consistent with all else that is known for "sure" about physics.
Neither a or b is particularly off limits or even banned by the masses from obtaining. Many people are just born with a), and b) is something that you get if you are willing to dedicate yourself to getting a Phd in physics. Otherwise, you can't really make a contribution that's meaningful. You need the math to describe what you are talking about, in a -useful- way, and you need the knowledge of what's already out there so that your math doesn't fall flat on its face when someone points out that your theory of gravity, if applied, would mean that people could just jump off the earth into outer space.. and you have to go back to the drawing board because you don't know what you're talking about.
The Einstein fanatics and the Big Bang proponents refuse to consider it as a possibility (a lot of careers depend on Big Bang and Esintein being right). Einstein is a demigod in some circles and his wisdom must not be questioned. As a result little funding is allocated for research in this area. That's too bad. We are probably missing some very exciting physics in the process.
Boy, this is spoken like someone who is completely disconnected from the academic process. There is no bigger fantasy a 20-something working on a phd physicist than to write THE paper that shows Einstein failed to account for some cosmological phenomon, that gravity is clearly explained by some new thing, the universe is really some other age, and by the way, faster than light travel is easily arranged, as demonstrated by this new machine that he or she invented.
Scientists don't work to prop-up theories, they are a bunch of jackasses that learn to understand the old because they have to, but, they would love to put their own stuff in its place. These people aren't stodgy old guardians of the scrolls of doom nearly as much as they are a bunch of sharks circling information, just waiting for that first bit of blood that suggests a hole in some established theory.
I love my guns as much as any good right winger, but, to even compare Microsoft's FUD to some sort of an armed camp seems awefully ludicrous when the real guys with guns are fighting in Iraq.
GM Built a similar modular electric car a while ago. The entire battery + drive train was in a thin rectangular brick upon which different "mission modules". So you could have a crossover shell, a sport shell, a pickup shell, and swap them in and out. Of course, the economics of the car were so prohibitive that dealers laughed at it, but it points the way to future technologies.
Such a thing would obviously radically redefine cars.
Thank GOD! For a minute there, I thought you were going to say there is nothing wrong with the republican part
And Democrats are better, how? The Reagan revolution laid the framework for a lifetime of general economic and military expansion of the United States. The liberal socialism that came before it was a complete and utter failure.
it's flamebait if your a homophobe, it sickens me what happened to Alan Turring especialy after the contribution he made to the world; he easily saved millions of lives by leading the team that broke the enigma cade.
Not just broke Enigma, either, but, also, arguably invented computers in the modern sense to do it. It's like, let's invent something previously impossible to do something that is completely unimaginable, and do so under the pressure of wartime. It's arguably the greatest intellectual feat of the second world war.
Sentencing guidelines are a mistake, and that's the whole problem. What sentencing guidelines do is move the judiciary power into the federal power, and as a result, you have a race to ever more ridiculous sentences for political reasons. What we really need is to have judges doing the sentencing based on the facts of the case and the real severity of the crime, not a congress in a race to imprison people to seem tough on crime.
Sure, one can say that there was identity theft involved, but, what -really- happened? If the students used a password cracker to try and break in, then technically, yes, there was an identity theft because they logged in as someone else. However, this sort of an attack doesn't really constitute an identity theft in the sense we would reasonably define it - which is, using someone's personal information to destroy their life. Like, they weren't breaking into accounts to steal visa numbers and go on a spending spree. Yet, they are going to be charged with the crime, and the government is using a technicality to smear them in the public.
Such actions by the government will only undermine people's faith in it. As Princess Leia once said, "the more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
How that would go in this age of corporate and special interest lobbyists is something to contemplate
It is for this reason that we have to oppose any Constitutional convention. The Constitution was designed to gives us a very limited government that's been abused through the centuries, and a new Constitution could only give us a less limited government, subject to the same abuse, and we would wind up with no rights at all.
Riding in a car does not cause an intrusion of the rights of the people, so the President is allowed to ride in cars. However, the President would not be allowed to ride his or her car across my land without my consent.
I've been a fairly staunch opponent of the USA joining any cap and trade emissions system, but, I'm starting to think that, because the USA has so much capital, it could actually do the kinds of investments needed to hit its targets, and actually go under them.
Thus, if the free market in the USA goes on a carbon credit bonanza, the USA would probably transform itself economically towards a low emissions system within about the same time as it rolled out cars, rolled out PCs, and then the internet. Each of those took about a decade, maybe two. So, while the USA might get dinged for a few years on carbon taxes, eventually, instead of paying the Europeans and the third world, the USA would wind up actually taxing the third world for its greenhouse emissions, and likewise Europe. Europe lacks the dynamic market needed to make that kind of big change, and the third world lacks the capital.
So, we conservatives might be completely right and completely wrong at the same time. Global warming IS the biggest ripoff in the history of the world, but, it will be Americans ripping off the rest of the world!
The difference is, when you send out a letter, it takes a deliberate act of intrustion to read the contents, just as it takes a deliberate act of intrusion to read someone's email. If you get a postcard on your hand, sure, then read it. But, that's really more like someone sending you an email by mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
People sometimes really don't appreciate the difference in scale between a company like Microsoft and one like Mandriva
True enough. People talk about the ultimate triumph of Linux, and how Microsoft is coming apart or failing, and meanwhile, Microsoft makes more money in one day than one of the most reputable distributions of Linux has made, well, ever.
you shouldn't "feel the need" nor stick your bloody nose in other people business - this is exactly why you the whole world hates you
Actually, the world loves us. Everybody wants to be an American. Look at how many millions emigrate to the United States every year!
As far as sticking our noses into other people's business, does that imply that you are Chinese and view American protection of Taiwan as some sort of "other people's business" If so, could you kindly answer the readers on this board exactly what business China has in Tibet? Or are you even allowed? If you are Chinese, and you won't answer that, then you can take your righteousness, arrogance, and exports, and shove them up your ass. China may have more people than the United States, and may someday have a greater economy, but the United States will always have enough nuclear weapons to kill all of you communist sons of bitches.
Don't ever forget that.
When I run for Senate in the United States, I will advocate the construction of enough nuclear weapons to exterminate humanity. If people want to attack the USA, we can and will be able to destroy the entire world.
F--- you all!
dear American moron, the only "War On Terror" is in your head.
Um, can you explain why me any American should feel the need to defend you Taiwanese from the "real" China? You can't defend yourselves, and China knows it.
The whole proclaimed need for communications surveillance and arbitary invasions of ideological nations is because there's not a practical warning and defense system against some jackass carrying a bomb.
Now, there is.
If small, portable MRIs can be mass produced, we could have simple scanners that you step through in key areas, and quickly identify if you have explosives on your person. There's no need for trying to figure out who might try and blow someone or something up. Instead, we'll just be able to catch people with explosives as they walk down the street.
The implications of this sort of capability are far reaching. If the state can effectively monitor explosives themselves, there's no need to even really spend too much effort chasing after people, and as such, doesn't have to take draconian measures to protect itself. Empires have again become possible. If the USA had thousands of these things in Iraq, ringing check points and troop locations, or even, if possible, scanning ahead of convoys, then, the only weapon terrorists have would be effectively eliminated. A guy carries explosives somewhere, and he gets caught. Perhaps a state could even follow people buying chemical precursers. RDX (the stuff used to make C4), for example, has some stuff that's rather unusual in its own right. Perhaps a state could follow people that have explosives, for example, if a weapons maker is actually trying to bring parts to the leader of a cell for distribution, you could let him or her actually transport the explosives, and tail him, and bust the larger cell up.
Checkmate, terrorists across the globe. The Capitalist imperialists are about to take away your only weapon. Of course, the downside is, is that, if the third world suddenly has no weapon against a colonial occupation, then, why, one might ask, would we not occupy the third world? If Iraq was only 20 billion a year, there were few casualties, and pumping loads of oil, how many people would really care.
Within our lifetimes, technology such as this will allow the first world to carve up the third. It is inevitable.
We couldn't get $400,000 from anywhere
Well, Mandriva did get 1.6M to buy Linbox last year. And, there's always the French government.
You know you're corrupt when the government of Nigeria steps in to block your shady deal.
Really, the Nigerian gov't stepped in because they didn't get a piece of the pie. One wonders if Mandriva bribed the gov't in Nigeria first..
Amazon.com recommends "How to Blow Yourself Up Destroy His Enemy Western Christian Israel Loving Capitalist Apostates And Cash In With A Big Virgin Bonus."
Picture of Mohammed:
O O
|
\___/
Everyone seems to be knocking detroit for how and what they build, but, until very recently, no one has ever manufactured anything as complicated and at the scale of the Big Three. Those that scale up to GM, suddenly find themselves with GM's problems, and they don't do that much better, if at all. Toyota quality, for example, has plumetted as they ramp up production to be #1.
It's one thing to build a piece of software or even a PC, but try building something that people will sit in going 70+ mph for 10 years in generally absolute mechanical safety, and then fit that to real physical limits on weight, power, strength, and see how you do.
It's no different than how software people trying to build rockets have run into a hailstorm of problems. Elan, the guy building the Falcon rockets, has made a bunch of promises and we're still waiting for a launch. Similarly, Carmack and Co have built some interesting gadgets but they tend to blow up an aweful lot. Both of them have said, as of late, that geez, rocket science really is hard.
Surprise - when your test cycle is governed by the pace of a machine shop or a foundry and a part that breaks or fails, rather than 5 minutes of compile and run, building any system takes considerably longer and requires more money.
I pretty much live in a continual jumble of thoughts, and then somehow fit them all together into a single picture, where both hold together. Contradiction! I used to be horrified of internal inconsistency and contradiction, and now, I just don't care, and take the whole jumbled mess for what it is.
The whole study is a joke because it assumes that body mass index is a valid measure of obesity, and it isn't. The only real way to tell how fat you are is to measure your body fat percentage, usually with calipers although some new scales claim to be able to do it electrically.
I lift weights, and I'm at the higher side of the BMI because I've got a bit more muscle mass. Yet, according to that study, I'd be "fat". And I'm not even particularly big. If you got a man who was lifting since their teens into middle age, he could easily have 20 - 40 pounds more muscle than the average joe.
It's wrong to teach BMI in schools. It's wrong to use it as a measure. If you want to know fat, break out the calipers. Anything less, is wrong, and anything based on it, is absurd.
I wrote a 3d shooter called Independent. You can download it from http://www.mightyware.com/independent.htm. It's shareware, but, since all of you folks put up with my loony rants, the registration code is 1138. Enjoy!
I certainly don't think there's a conspiracy or anything of that sort
:-)
I was writing to be supportive of your post!
All any so-called crackpot needs to do, to prove his or her alternate theory of matter correct, is to build his or her anti-gravity machine, reverse the flow of heat from cold to hot, or do something simple and repeatable that shocks us into a new way of looking at physics. If entropy is wrong, gravity is wrong, electricity is wrong, then, let's see the new gadget that proves it. Or, barring that, point to the heavens and make a prediction about something we haven't seen before, and do so with math that is consistent with the math that we already have. The steps are there.
You make it sound like a bad thing, and that ivory tower guardians of cryptic scrolls are the true scientists. You have it all backwards
No, not at all. I think you are making the assumption that I mean to say that sharks are bad. Sharks aren't bad, they are sharks. Get it?
The guy I was replying to implied that scientists had a vested interest in propping up the cryptic scrolls. I merely called scientists sharks sniffing for blood, not to make a value judgement, but just as an example of how eager they are to the contrary. I mean, I think every physicist out there has some vision of outdoing Einstein, every Biologist trumping Darwin. Sure, if you roll out with the claim that you have a "new theory of everything", the academic community is going to come after you.. and they have to, because, the "new theory of everything" has to fit all that is already known to be true and you have to prove that you know what you are talking about.
But you can cut through all of that red tape with an experiment that shocks people into thinking that you might be onto something. Einstein did it twice, off the top of my head, when he explained the photoelectric effect, then, predicted the starlight getting shifted by the mass of the sun, and not only said it would get shifted, but gave a pretty accurate number as to how much that starlight would be shifted, because he had the math to back him up. So out of the gate, he had a real model, and a real prediction, and so, once his prediction came up roses, everyone could take his math and come up with other ways to test it.
The growth rate could be proportional to 1/r^2 on a galactic scale, but diverge from that on an intergalactic scale.
I think everyone throwing out 1/r^2 needs to really think about what it means. You don't need to be a hyperphysics guy to sort this out. The idea is really simple, is that, if you have a point source of some effect, radiating out equally in all directions, its effect would diminish as to the square of the distance. This "law" is really just a model that's a consequence of two things - one is that the source of the effect is essentially a point for purposes of calculation, and the other is that the effect is equally distributed over that area.
For gravity not dissipate over 1/r^2, then, it follows that in any of those systems that the distribution is not geometrically uniform. From there, we have to ask ourselves, well, why could that be?
1) It could be that gravity is not exactly a point source... or, to put it another way, that even over a cosmological distance, a gravity well is not evenly shaped. Thus, the force of gravity 90 degrees around and 2 light years from a point source is different from the force of gravity at 270 degrees around and 2 light years from the same source because the point is not actually a point, and a distance where it matters.
If not a point then? Then what shape would you choose? And you do have to choose carefully as there is an aweful lot of experimental evidence that says a point source indeed works 99.99% of the time. Here comes the heavy math. All math is, in physics, is a tool to describe the shapes of things. I'm not a math guy, but the gist of relativity is that Einstein used a new kind of math to describe curves in multiple dimensions to describe how space and time interact. Hooray for Einstein!
So, if you are that smart, with that formula of yours in mind that describes the new geometry of gravity, you ought to be able to observe it. You should be able to see telltale signs of it in the orbits of our planets in our solar system, unless your gravity formula predisposes a mixture of mattter or scale outside of what's in our system. But then, astronomy can help you, as, you can point a telescope anywhere and find some sort of a signal that matches your prediction. If that were the case, then you would be hailed a hero.
2) Gravity is amplified and or dissipated due to some unknown interaction with some other gravity "field", or some other sort of matter. Here again, you'd need to break out the heavy math and find some sort of a model that covers everything we do know is true about gravity, which is a lot, and then tacks on your stuff at the extreme. With that model, you can again then devise experiments to test it.
In both cases, notice that there's no conspiracy involved. Instead, to do physics, you basically just
a) have the insight and imagination to see what is going on in the world.
b) have the mathematical tools to describe that vision consistent with all else that is known for "sure" about physics.
Neither a or b is particularly off limits or even banned by the masses from obtaining. Many people are just born with a), and b) is something that you get if you are willing to dedicate yourself to getting a Phd in physics. Otherwise, you can't really make a contribution that's meaningful. You need the math to describe what you are talking about, in a -useful- way, and you need the knowledge of what's already out there so that your math doesn't fall flat on its face when someone points out that your theory of gravity, if applied, would mean that people could just jump off the earth into outer space.. and you have to go back to the drawing board because you don't know what you're talking about.
The Einstein fanatics and the Big Bang proponents refuse to consider it as a possibility (a lot of careers depend on Big Bang and Esintein being right). Einstein is a demigod in some circles and his wisdom must not be questioned. As a result little funding is allocated for research in this area. That's too bad. We are probably missing some very exciting physics in the process.
Boy, this is spoken like someone who is completely disconnected from the academic process. There is no bigger fantasy a 20-something working on a phd physicist than to write THE paper that shows Einstein failed to account for some cosmological phenomon, that gravity is clearly explained by some new thing, the universe is really some other age, and by the way, faster than light travel is easily arranged, as demonstrated by this new machine that he or she invented.
Scientists don't work to prop-up theories, they are a bunch of jackasses that learn to understand the old because they have to, but, they would love to put their own stuff in its place. These people aren't stodgy old guardians of the scrolls of doom nearly as much as they are a bunch of sharks circling information, just waiting for that first bit of blood that suggests a hole in some established theory.
I love my guns as much as any good right winger, but, to even compare Microsoft's FUD to some sort of an armed camp seems awefully ludicrous when the real guys with guns are fighting in Iraq.
GM Built a similar modular electric car a while ago. The entire battery + drive train was in a thin rectangular brick upon which different "mission modules". So you could have a crossover shell, a sport shell, a pickup shell, and swap them in and out. Of course, the economics of the car were so prohibitive that dealers laughed at it, but it points the way to future technologies.
Such a thing would obviously radically redefine cars.
Thank GOD! For a minute there, I thought you were going to say there is nothing wrong with the republican part
And Democrats are better, how? The Reagan revolution laid the framework for a lifetime of general economic and military expansion of the United States. The liberal socialism that came before it was a complete and utter failure.
it's flamebait if your a homophobe, it sickens me what happened to Alan Turring especialy after the contribution he made to the world; he easily saved millions of lives by leading the team that broke the enigma cade.
Not just broke Enigma, either, but, also, arguably invented computers in the modern sense to do it. It's like, let's invent something previously impossible to do something that is completely unimaginable, and do so under the pressure of wartime. It's arguably the greatest intellectual feat of the second world war.
Sentencing guidelines are a mistake, and that's the whole problem. What sentencing guidelines do is move the judiciary power into the federal power, and as a result, you have a race to ever more ridiculous sentences for political reasons. What we really need is to have judges doing the sentencing based on the facts of the case and the real severity of the crime, not a congress in a race to imprison people to seem tough on crime.
Sure, one can say that there was identity theft involved, but, what -really- happened? If the students used a password cracker to try and break in, then technically, yes, there was an identity theft because they logged in as someone else. However, this sort of an attack doesn't really constitute an identity theft in the sense we would reasonably define it - which is, using someone's personal information to destroy their life. Like, they weren't breaking into accounts to steal visa numbers and go on a spending spree. Yet, they are going to be charged with the crime, and the government is using a technicality to smear them in the public.
Such actions by the government will only undermine people's faith in it. As Princess Leia once said, "the more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
How that would go in this age of corporate and special interest lobbyists is something to contemplate
It is for this reason that we have to oppose any Constitutional convention. The Constitution was designed to gives us a very limited government that's been abused through the centuries, and a new Constitution could only give us a less limited government, subject to the same abuse, and we would wind up with no rights at all.
Riding in a car does not cause an intrusion of the rights of the people, so the President is allowed to ride in cars. However, the President would not be allowed to ride his or her car across my land without my consent.
I've been a fairly staunch opponent of the USA joining any cap and trade emissions system, but, I'm starting to think that, because the USA has so much capital, it could actually do the kinds of investments needed to hit its targets, and actually go under them.
Thus, if the free market in the USA goes on a carbon credit bonanza, the USA would probably transform itself economically towards a low emissions system within about the same time as it rolled out cars, rolled out PCs, and then the internet. Each of those took about a decade, maybe two. So, while the USA might get dinged for a few years on carbon taxes, eventually, instead of paying the Europeans and the third world, the USA would wind up actually taxing the third world for its greenhouse emissions, and likewise Europe. Europe lacks the dynamic market needed to make that kind of big change, and the third world lacks the capital.
So, we conservatives might be completely right and completely wrong at the same time. Global warming IS the biggest ripoff in the history of the world, but, it will be Americans ripping off the rest of the world!
No wonder the Chinese didn't sign!
The difference is, when you send out a letter, it takes a deliberate act of intrustion to read the contents, just as it takes a deliberate act of intrusion to read someone's email. If you get a postcard on your hand, sure, then read it. But, that's really more like someone sending you an email by mistake.