This comprehensive hurricane data is more interesting. It has all storms rather than just the ones that hit the US.
Here's the total counts for Atlantic storms by storm category (from Tropical Storm through Category 5) for the worst decade listed in your source (1941-1950) compared to the most recent decade (1995-2004):
BTW, do you do your laundry with machines? If so, why? Why not just hire some servants to do all your household chores for you? If you don't do this, or don't do all your household chores by hand with no machines at all, then you're a hypocrite.
Riiight. Only if the risk from machine-damaged clothes is of similar magnitude to the risk from machine-based voter fraud.
How does telling the truth about our wrong actions, however unpalatable, provide aid and comfort to the enemy? Is it better to just lie and cover them up?
I contend that the war crimes themselves are what give aid and comfort to the enemy, since they support the enemy's portrayal of us as evil.
IOW, it's the actions that are wrong, not the admission.
Also, do you have any documentation confirming that the US accusations or admissions of these actions had significant effects on the treatment of our POWs? It's hard to imagine that the VC wouldn't know what was happening, even without any admissions by the US.
The real problem is how the G.W. Administration and the Military defines Terrorist States. It's a dangerous us-and-them attitude that is completely out of date and distorts our relative weaknesses/advantages dealing with "them".
What scares me is that we were warned that this was coming, and very few people paid attention:
I'm also running because I want to keep the peace, keep the peace. When I was coming up, it was a dangerous world and you knew exactly who they were. It was us versus them and it was clear who them was. Today we are not so sure who the they are but we know they're there.
George W. Bush campaign speech, 23 Jan 2000, Council Bluffs, IA
Not quite. The timing belt turns the camshaft which opens and closes the valves. All modern engines have camshafts and timing belts (or timing chains), with two exceptions: 2-stroke engines (motorcycles, snowmobiles, etc) and Wankels (Mazda RX-7, etc).
Nope. Read the white paper. It describes the compression and expansion clearly. Here's the process:
The perpendicular rotary valve closes off the torus ahead of the piston
The intake charge is compressed into a combustion chamber, which is outside of the torus
Another (rotary? solenoid?) valve closes the intake port of the combustion chamber
The perpendicular valve opens to allow the piston to pass
The fuel is injected into the combustion chamber and ignited
After the piston is past the perpendicular valve, the valve closes again
A valve (perhaps the same rotary valve as the intake port valve?) opens the exhaust port of the combustion chamber
The burning charge expands between the closed perpendicular valve and the back face of the piston
exhaust, intake, repeat
Advantages:
Since the piston does not form part of the combustion chamber, there is much more freedom in designing the combustion chamber for efficiency -- lower surface/volume ratio (unlike a Wankel) and few crevices that trap unburned charge
The compression ratio, and perhaps the displacement, could be varied by changing the port/valve timing
Assymetrical compression/expansion ratios are easy -- a larger expansion ratio could provide better efficiency
The external combustion chamber allows better handling of the heat issues -- e.g., the piston is not exposed to the primary flame front; cooling can be uniform around the chamber
The external combustion chamber could be made replacable, so that improvements in chamber design can be easily retrofitted on earlier engines
Fewer intake and exhaust ports could make underhood plumbing easier
Fewer spark plugs could allow use of more expensive technologies for similar costs
Needs very little mass in the flywheel, since there is only uniform rotary motion -- that gives quicker engine response and acceleration
Disadvantages:
The valve system is critical. Historically, nothing has worked better than the good old poppet valve for sealing a combustion chamber. It might take a while for the sealing to be worked out properly, just like it did with the Wankel -- the early engines had to have their tip seals replaced way too often.
It took decades of experience to design our current highly efficient piston-based combustion chambers. It might be a while before optimal designs are developed for this separate combustion chamber. OTOH, even sub-optimal designs might be better than piston-based designs
Ideal positioning of the engine package (with a vertical axis to the torus) would mean an additional gear set to convert the output to a horizontal axis so that it can fit into the current automobile designs. OTOH, a vertical axis would cause some interesting torque reactions on the automobile -- accelerating hard tries to rotate the car around the engine's axis.
Overall, this is one of the more promising alternative designs that I have seen.
Block access to public records? The US has a FOI act just like most civilized countries. Admittedly it is abused, but by both parties here in the US. This, by the way, is nothing new.
True, the struggle to get public access to records is nothing new. However, the current administration's policy seems to be that the public should never have access to most of their records.
The Bush Administration is mounting the most sustained assault on open government since the early Reagan administration, or perhaps even since President Gerald Ford vetoed the Freedom of Information Act amendments in 1974.
That attitude -- open government laws are "as bad as possible" -- permeates the Bush administration, up to and including the president himself.
Bush refused to make a clarion call for openness, and instead complained that he couldn't use "e-mail anymore, out of concern for freedom-of-information laws but also concern for my privacy."
Cheney says his refusal to give the General Accounting Office any details on his energy task force meetings is not a cover-up but a principled attempt to restore presidential powers that have been eroded "because of the unwise compromises that have been made over the last 30 or 35 years."
Attorney General John Ashcroft told government agencies in an Oct. 12, 2001, memo to stop any discretionary releases under the Freedom of Information Act and to take advantage of any legal technicality for withholding records.
The White House Counsel's office held up release for a year of 68,000 pages of old Reagan-era documents, and issued a November 2001 executive order that turns on its head the Presidential Records Act -- giving to former presidents and even their heirs the indefinite ability to stall release of records
Power is corrupt by definition, because power requires the initiation of force
Some people can only influence others' behavior through force,or the threat of force. Other people can influence others' behavior without threat of force. Who is more powerful?
They believe absolutely in everything written in the Bible... and if they have the power to make it happen, they're going to.
Nope, they don't believe everything written in the Bible. They only believe things that support their fanatical beliefs. They ignore or explain away anything else. For instance:
Don't use violence (Luke 3:14 - written to soldiers!)
Love your enemies; do good to those who hate you (Mt 5:44, Lk 6:27)
Don't repay evil for evil (Rom 12:17)
Be honest in everything (Rom 12:17)
Do your utmost to live in peace with everyone (Rom 12:18)
Don't avenge yourselves; let God handle the justice (Rom 12:19)
Give food and drink to your enemies who need it (Prov 25:20-21, Rom 12:20)
The "convenient" (and dangerous) thing about fanaticism is that it's self-reinforcing. A fanatic's world-view will only allow them to accept things that support or extend that current world-view. Anything else is considered heresy, no matter its source.
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.1) Oprah 7.0 [en]" -> site-win-ie5.css
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.1; Opera 7.0) Oprah 7.0 [en]" -> site.css
It's pretty clear what they're doing:
if string contains "Opera", use site.css else if string contains "MSIE 6.0", use site-win-ie6.css else if string containse "MSIE 5.5", use site-win-ie5.css else use site.css
In other words, it doesn't matter what Opera claims to be compatible with - they always get the default sheet, just like a completely unrecognized browser does.
I'm trying to apply Hanlon's Razor here, but it's hard...
Generally, you're right, but the difference might not be as much as you think. Look at this dyno chart of an RSX Type S. The torque curve is flat at 125 lb/ft or above from 2500 to 8000 rpm. That's a pretty flexible engine.
It's a little silly to compare cars that are so different in cost, but I'm a bit obsessive, so here goes an exhaustive comparison.
curb weight: 2767 lb
6th gear: 0.738:1
5th gear: 0.921:1
final drive: 4.389:1
front tire size: 205/55-16, nominal circum: 78.16 in.
rpm@92 mph, 6th: 3758
front wheel hp @ 3750 rpm: 87
rpm@62 mph, 5th: 3169
front wheel hp @ 3200 rpm: 72
rpm@62 mph, 4th: 3904
front wheel hp @ 3900 rpm: 92
Rear wheel weight/power ratio comparison:
92 mph, 6th gear:
Corvette: 29.2 lb/hp
RSX: 31.8 lb/hp
62 mph, 5th gear:
Corvette: 29.2 lb/hp
RSX: 38.4 lb/hp (30 lb/hp in 4th)
At 62 mph in 5th, you'd have to shift down to 4th in the RSX to match the Corvette's acceleration in 5th, but at 94 mph in 6th they're pretty close. Not as much difference as I expected...
Of course, the Corvette costs about twice as much as the RSX. Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer choices...
FWIW, as nice as the Corvette is, if I had the money, I'd get an S2000. Sure, I'd have to shift down at least two gears to accelerate, but Corvettes feel too big and heavy for me, and I love the sound and feel of Honda engines when they're spinning towards redline.
If I host a web page that contains some information and I make no money off the web page, and someone in another state views the information on the web page, is that commerce? No money changed hands.
Yes. Remember, information is property, and property has value.
To "monitor" the whole internet would require that all traffic pass through a central point, or at least pass through territory controlled by the US of A.
Which means that if/when this monitoring system is in place, it would be in the US government's "security" interest to try to make all traffic of interest go through US-controlled territory at some point.
Which, in turn, means that the US government would be very happy to see US-based multinational corporations gain control of all the main routing points worldwide, because those corps would already have the monitoring technology in place. Even though the monitoring laws should only require monitoring in US territory, what would prevent the US government from making secret deals with those companies to monitor non-US traffic, too? Only if the monitoring can be detected and revealed by third parties can we be sure that this is not happening.
In other words, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - unless there is a simple, reliable way for us peons to monitor the monitoring, the potential for abuse will only be restrained by the conscience of those using the monitoring. Not a good situation.
...is Microsoft evil, or are governments evil in general?
Yes. And no.
Any organization (company, government, religion, whatever) large enough to wield significant power over a significant number of people has the potential to become evil. If the organization uses this power to enhance itself by harming others, then it has become evil.
How come your Government [which, let's face it, means big corporations] gets privacy and the Average Joe gets snooped on by amenities engineers, neighbours, bent cops, and bent cops++ [pronounced "Effbee Eye"]?!?!?
Ray Kroc (founder of MacDonald's) said it best:
The organization cannot trust the individual; the individual must trust the organization.
Somehow, this seems to be a main guiding philosophy in our "culture". It's revolting. Perhaps we should, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't confuse bench dyno output with rear-wheel horsepower...
According to this baseline dyno run on a stock C6, the rear-wheel horsepower is 348, which gives:
C6 Corvette:
Power/weight: 9.0 lb/hp
Puts the Miata within striking range, depending on the drivers' abilities...
I always wanted "mushrooms from God"!
This comprehensive hurricane data is more interesting. It has all storms rather than just the ones that hit the US.
Here's the total counts for Atlantic storms by storm category (from Tropical Storm through Category 5) for the worst decade listed in your source (1941-1950) compared to the most recent decade (1995-2004):
1941-1950
1995-2004
Nope, it's not "four times the normal number", but it sure is:
I sure am glad to hear that the history of warfare stopped sometime before 1957.
Riiight. Only if the risk from machine-damaged clothes is of similar magnitude to the risk from machine-based voter fraud.
Greater risk requires greater diligence.
How does telling the truth about our wrong actions, however unpalatable, provide aid and comfort to the enemy? Is it better to just lie and cover them up?
I contend that the war crimes themselves are what give aid and comfort to the enemy, since they support the enemy's portrayal of us as evil.
IOW, it's the actions that are wrong, not the admission.
Also, do you have any documentation confirming that the US accusations or admissions of these actions had significant effects on the treatment of our POWs? It's hard to imagine that the VC wouldn't know what was happening, even without any admissions by the US.
Sadly, it almost makes a twisted sort of sense.
George Bush is attacking Iraq to gain control of oil.
Sorry. Spelling mistake, I think. Should be:
George Bush is attacking Iraq to gain control of all.
What will they do? Why, they'll arrest them for "exercising authority which was not [theirs]."
'cause the smart people had kids, and they're running the country!
What scares me is that we were warned that this was coming, and very few people paid attention:
George W. Bush campaign speech, 23 Jan 2000, Council Bluffs, IA
Google it
Not quite. The timing belt turns the camshaft which opens and closes the valves. All modern engines have camshafts and timing belts (or timing chains), with two exceptions: 2-stroke engines (motorcycles, snowmobiles, etc) and Wankels (Mazda RX-7, etc).
Moving off-topic, what proportion of modern engines are free-running?
Nope. Read the white paper. It describes the compression and expansion clearly. Here's the process:
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
Overall, this is one of the more promising alternative designs that I have seen.
And just what kind of person^Walien do we expect to run up and answer when they hear this Mack truck going by?
Some people can only influence others' behavior through force,or the threat of force. Other people can influence others' behavior without threat of force. Who is more powerful?
Absolutely true.
Nope, they don't believe everything written in the Bible. They only believe things that support their fanatical beliefs. They ignore or explain away anything else. For instance:
The "convenient" (and dangerous) thing about fanaticism is that it's self-reinforcing. A fanatic's world-view will only allow them to accept things that support or extend that current world-view. Anything else is considered heresy, no matter its source.
I messed around with a few other UserAgent strings, and it gets a little clearer:
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.1) Opera 7.0 [en]" -> site.css
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.1) Oprah 7.0 [en]" -> site-win-ie6.css
So far, exactly as reported in the article
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible) Oprah 7.0 [en]" -> site.css
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.1) Oprah 7.0 [en]" -> site-win-ie5.css
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.1; Opera 7.0) Oprah 7.0 [en]" -> site.css
It's pretty clear what they're doing:
In other words, it doesn't matter what Opera claims to be compatible with - they always get the default sheet, just like a completely unrecognized browser does.
I'm trying to apply Hanlon's Razor here, but it's hard...
Generally, you're right, but the difference might not be as much as you think. Look at this dyno chart of an RSX Type S. The torque curve is flat at 125 lb/ft or above from 2500 to 8000 rpm. That's a pretty flexible engine.
It's a little silly to compare cars that are so different in cost, but I'm a bit obsessive, so here goes an exhaustive comparison.
2003 Corvette Coupe:
2003 Acura RSX Type S:
Rear wheel weight/power ratio comparison:
At 62 mph in 5th, you'd have to shift down to 4th in the RSX to match the Corvette's acceleration in 5th, but at 94 mph in 6th they're pretty close. Not as much difference as I expected...
Of course, the Corvette costs about twice as much as the RSX. Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer choices...
FWIW, as nice as the Corvette is, if I had the money, I'd get an S2000. Sure, I'd have to shift down at least two gears to accelerate, but Corvettes feel too big and heavy for me, and I love the sound and feel of Honda engines when they're spinning towards redline.
[Okay, make that excessively obsessive...]
Check out secure delete.
Yes. Remember, information is property, and property has value.
[only half kidding...]
Which means that if/when this monitoring system is in place, it would be in the US government's "security" interest to try to make all traffic of interest go through US-controlled territory at some point.
Which, in turn, means that the US government would be very happy to see US-based multinational corporations gain control of all the main routing points worldwide, because those corps would already have the monitoring technology in place. Even though the monitoring laws should only require monitoring in US territory, what would prevent the US government from making secret deals with those companies to monitor non-US traffic, too? Only if the monitoring can be detected and revealed by third parties can we be sure that this is not happening.
In other words, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - unless there is a simple, reliable way for us peons to monitor the monitoring, the potential for abuse will only be restrained by the conscience of those using the monitoring. Not a good situation.
Yes. And no.
Any organization (company, government, religion, whatever) large enough to wield significant power over a significant number of people has the potential to become evil. If the organization uses this power to enhance itself by harming others, then it has become evil.
Ray Kroc (founder of MacDonald's) said it best:
Somehow, this seems to be a main guiding philosophy in our "culture". It's revolting. Perhaps we should, too.