"at least in the Soviet Union as Mir is funded by a private company rather than the government and needs money desperately to keep the station running."
Actually, the Eu law is effected through the ECA act, and hence could be repealed perfectly legally. We dont have a gauranteed freedom of speach becaus the system is permisive (actually, I though the US constiution was along ismmilar lines in that it prohibits the CREATION of a law limmiting free speech), hence you can say what you want providing you dont break the law (i.e. influencing a jury). Regarding Demon, I think a legal mistake has been made in classfying an ISP as a publisher rather than a carrier. For instance, it is treason (technically) to break intoa post box in the UK (though you would never get done for it) as the Royal Mail is property of the Queen and while in transit, so are the letters. On the other hand, you couldn't post a block of hard drugs and do the Queen for possesion with intent to supply, humerous though it may be to attempt to do so. Perhaps it would be best to have (yet another) Lords select commmity sti down and look at the Internet, as I think appyling precednts with other media dosn't work so well with the Internet which is drastically different from any other. Certainly, the problem is nothing to do with Free Speech or lack of formall written Constitution.
O.k. pedant, firstly, a constitution is not a piece of paper, which is where Americans all amke their mistake, it's a set of laws determining the governmnet of a country. They do NOT have to include a set of rights. When I say we have no written constiution, I mean that unlike the US, we have evolved a system of governmnet and an accomanying set of laws over about 1000 years (though most of the current lot date back to 1688 and the Restoration of the Monarchy after our wonderfuly brutal 'Republic' under Cromwell).
Now, our constitutional laws and acts may be just normal acts of Parliament, but they are damned easy to change around. And unlike our American cousins who are paranoid about their governmnets taking rights away from them left right and centre, we are not because we have two checks on Parliament and it's ellected Commons.
One, the House of Lords has the power to block, no matter the circumstance, ANY piece of legislation that delays or postpones a general ellection.
Two, the Queen can dismiss parliament at any point.
In order to get an ellected dictator who can impose a load of laws on us that limit our freedom (and though we have no freedoms laid out, they are assumed, we are free to act as long as we do not transgress the law, hence we don't have freedom of speach, yet we can talk our arses off provided we dont Libel someone etc, unlike the American system, wehre you have a right to freedom of Speach which can in theory be taken away from you.), we would have to have a person who is patient enough to fill the Lords entirely with people he trusted implicitly and who were likeminded (once in the Lords they are free from the need for Parliamentary support, which is why the more unellected the better), and then he has to get rid of the Queen for no good reason... and then.... and then he has to get the Military to swear alligience to him, and then becaue of the removal of the Monarch he has to re write the whole book from the begining anyway (as all the powers still stem from the Crown).
The moonarchy still has a high aprooval over here, it would be hideously hard to do and you would need to change the system anyway, and the two checks can intervene (as can the ellectorate) at any time. Now, if, by some fluke, an evil congress and President got into your system, they COULD play merry havock with your constitution, and ammend those pesky rights and mess the legislation and tie it up in knots so it is very hard to change back. On the other hand, over here, there is no one higher than the Parliament [because it acts with the power of an absolute monarch, bound only by the monarch (who is bound by the practicle limitations in that if she started acting like a dictator everyone would laugh for a few minutes and then we would become a republic) and the House of Lords, which is bound not (as T Blair like to think) by Commons legislation but by Upper House conventions, like the Sailsbury convention which is going out the window because the Genius that is Mr Blair dosn't grasp that the collective illigitimacy stop us getting situations like the CTB Treaty fiasco.]... and so a future Parliament would be able to reverse any changes in a week.
All in all the sure fire way to protect your rights is to make sure you vote reponsibly, becaue any legal system can be perverted, but as Douglas Adams would have people put on every Machine "Something that hardly ever goes wrong can be fixed, something that never goes wrong is not only hard to fix, but is often very hard to get at in the first place." And anyway, the Parliamentary system has stood us in good sted for 311 years now with no single Constitution as a special document, yet the US managed to have a war over the interpretation of it's. Hmmm... teething problems?
O.k. pedant, firstly, a constitution is not a piece of paper, which is where Americans all amke their mistake, it's a set of laws determining the governmnet of a country. They do NOT have to include a set of rights. When I say we have no written constiution, I mean that unlike the US, we have evolved a system of governmnet and an accomanying set of laws over about 1000 years (though most of the current lot date back to 1688 and the Restoration of the Monarchy after our wonderfuly brutal 'Republic' under Cromwell). Now, our constitutional laws and acts may be just normal acts of Parliament, but they are damned easy to change around. And unlike our American cousins who are paranoid about their governmnets taking rights away from them left right and centre, we are not because we have two checks on Parliament and it's ellected Commons. One, the House of Lords has the power to block, no matter the circumstance, ANY piece of legislation that delays or postpones a general ellection. Two, the Queen can dismiss parliament at any point. In order to get an ellected dictator who can impose a load of laws on us that limit our freedom (and though we have no freedoms laid out, they are assumed, we are free to act as long as we do not transgress the law, hence we don't have freedom of speach, yet we can talk our arses off provided we dont Libel someone etc, unlike the American system, wehre you have a right to freedom of Speach which can in theory be taken away from you.), we would have to have a person who is patient enough to fill the ords entirely wiht people he trusted implicitly and who were likeminded (once in the Lords they are free from the need for Parliamentary support, which is why the more unellected the better), and teh he has to get rid of the Queen for no good reason... and then.... and tehn he has to get the Military to swear alligience to him, and then becaue of the removal of the Monarch he has to re write the whole book from the begining anyway (as all the powers still stem from the Crown). The moonarchy still has a high aprooval over here, it would be hideously hard to do and you would need to change the system anyway, and the two checks can intervene (as can the ellectorat) at any time. Now, if, by some fluke, an evil congress and President got into your system, they COULD play merry havock with your constitution, and ammend those pesky rights and mess the legislation and tie it up in knots so it is very hard to change back. On the other hand, over here, three is no one higher than the Parliament [because it acts with the power of an absolute monarch, bound only by the monarch (who is bound by the practicle limitations in that if she started acting like a dictator everyone would laugh for a few minutes and then we would become a republic) and the House of Lords, which is bound not (as T Blair like to think) by Commons legislation but by Upper House conventions, like the Sailsbury convention which is going out the window because the Genius that is Mr Blair dosn't grasp that the collective illigitimacy stop us getting situations like the CTB Treaty fiasco.]... and so a future Parliament would be able to reverse any changes in a week. All in all the sure fire way to protect your rights is to make sure you vote reponsibly, becaue any legal system can be perverted, but as Douglas Adams would have people put on every Machine "Something that hardly ever goes wrong can be fixed, something that never goes wrong is not only hard to fix, but is often very hard to get at in the first place." And anyway, the Parliamentary system has stood us in good sted for 311 years now with no single Constitution as a special document, yet the US managed to have a war over the interpretation of it's. Hmmm... teething problems?
Rubbish! Our system of government does have a constiution, and a written one to boot, it's split over many, many documents, and it forms a far les legalistic culture. We are permited to do as we will provided it does not transgress a law. Arbirtary detention? thats a gross exadgeration. I LIKE our system. It can't get too bad because then our checks and ballneces can come into play, you know, the big scary illigitament ones like the Lords and teh Monarch, and they can only act if there is popular cause, because otherwise they would egt ignored. This is whyan unwriten constiution is better, it if more flexible.
Ah, but you dont collapse into the answer, you collapse into a type of answer that has a global property, hence massively reducing your workload. (i.e. if you know your looking for an encrypted string of words, you would look for some property that indicated words, and you can hone it ever more specifically so that you look for something resembling English rather than 'asdgskljhflash'
Hydrogen can not fuse with itself, it has only a proton, and so can not bond to another proton. However, Deuterium has a neutron, so it can fuse with hydrogen to form Helium three, or with tritium, which ahs two neutrons, to form helium four. a 50:50 mix of deuterium and tritium is what will be used to make commericial power stations work, though Helium 3 and tritium would be better (the only large scale source of helium 3 is on the moons surface, trapped from cosmic rays etc.) Tritium would bred in the reactor by absorbing a neutron given out in the reaction with lithium 7 to give tritium, thus the REAL fuel for commerical fusion would be Lithium and Deuterium. Deuterium has a natural abundancy of 0.015% in nature. Tritium, having a half life of 12.5 years is not found naturally.
It is THE most ugly building, with the single exception of the Mwheel, which stalks me all over Westminster (where I go to school). And it's in the wrong place, Big Ben was designed to produce a clever optical illusion, looking tall and thin, the wheel provides a new frame of reference, and Big Ben now looks short and fat.
Can you say "Elite-style-free-for-all-trading-and-fighting-and -joining-alliance/empire-in-permenant-un iverse-whilst-doing-what-the-hell-you-want-when-yo u-want" all in one breath and not die of a heart attack for sheer joy? But I suspect it will be a lame mission based fighter sim or a massive online battle of hoth. I want an online Elite (preferably with the full inertial flight model that allowed for 'fun' (complicated) flying rather than point and fly used by Xwing Games. Anyway, I want to fly a Star Destroyer, dum-dum dedumdumdum domdomdom, dum-dum dedumdumdum domdomdom pa pa pa pom papa pom papa, pe pe pe pa pompe pa pompe...
Re:All should support DVDs *because* they're crack
on
The Dead Media Project
·
· Score: 1
The NSA and Echelon were set up as post war Signals Intlegence. It's an Anglophone alliance, with listening posts in Canada, the USA, the UK, and Australia. GCHQ (the British NSA) and the NSA work together at Menwith Hill in Yorkshire where the European intelignce is collected. The point is that it is ILLEGAL under the terms of the agreement to do what the NSA is doing, handing on the information. It may surprise you to know that GCHQ officers work at the US's coresponding base. But, as GCHQ is more acuontable, US commercial secrets are not passed on to British Competetors. I find it total unacceptable that the NSA should be doing this using OUR equipment on OUR land.
Quantum computing is not going to replace digital computing, even if we get nice solid state qubits, the kind of calculations they can do is limited. You would have quantum co-processor to do things that Quantum computers do best (finding ALL the posssible results to a number of permutations and choosing global properties in teh answer to narrow down.)
News papares are more accountable to telling the truth than the internet. If you want information that you can trust (certain sites and certain papaers excluded), then a paper is best. The Paper offers somthing the internet dosnt (and this is how they will survive), information sorting. Already, it is getting harder and harder to find what is relevant to YOU on the net. Papers can serve as a filter for this sea of information. I can also read a papare on the tube. I cnat browse the internet on the tube.
NO one ever replies to me.... Anyway, after you account for absorbtion by clouds and air, it is infact 500W per square meter. Making the area required 1.2 Million square meters. The average output of a modern powrestatin is 1000Mw. So, for one average powrstation: you need an area of 2 million square kilometers, again assuming 100% efficieny. It's plainly not feasable.
Goddamit! The correct prcedure is observation, hypothesis, experimental falsification, paper, peer review, publishment, repeat experimentation, aceptance and Scientific proof. If this thing does turn out to be good (and bear in mind if it gets it's energy from the sun ALL it is a rather efficient solar cell, after all, I dont think they have found a way to make Algae break the law of conservation of Energy, and if it does turn out to be feasable... (work out the energy density of the sun and it is NOT feasable for large scale gneration of power. The Earth recieves 1.3 KW per square meter of sunlight, so you would have to have an area of 462 thousand square meters to have an equivalent of a 600MW Powerstation. 600000/1.3=461538.5, and that assumes that ALL of the solar energy is being turned into hydrogen gass.) And then you have to work out how to collect the hydrogen bubling off. Thats a lot of water, a lot of neutrients, and a lot of plastic/glass sheeting (the only way I can think of imidiately to allow sunlight through but retain hydrogen.) This leads me to the inescapable conclusion that these guys are not talking about saving the world, they are fishing for a research grant. This is probably why they went for a press release rather than the normal procedures, because the peer review would involve people doing feasability studies, and it would appear asa comment. It would become a scientific curiosity rather thana great new idea. BUT... it does have aplication for making hydrocarbons I guess. But for power generation, no.
The problem with taht idea is that while you are correct in saying that Paradigm shifts dont occur until a gneeration change, Quantum Mechanics is the most 'prooved' scientific theory we have. Dark matter has little to do with black holes. Given that our understanding of Gravity is correct (as we think it is), the universe is behaving rather oddly. So we try to account for the missing matter. It's termed dark becasue we cant see it, I.e. not stars. So Dark matter can consist of unacounted mass in neutrinos (assumed until recently to be negligable), WIMPS, Brown Dwarfs, dust clouds, HALOS etc. Alternatively, Gravity and mass are some of the main problems with the standard model. I'm willing to bet the answer is partly to do with our understanding of the way gravity behaves.
NASA has some REAL fundemental problembs, and it's all down to beaurocracy and lack of real direction. It's going to be vry bad for NASA if the ESA's Mars Express mission works out 100%. Even worse if Beagle 2 performs properly. Not only does it have a certain (if eccentric) style to it, namely carrying a piece of artwork by Damien Hurst and a specialy composed Blur track to announce it's all clear and landed, but it was done on a shoestring budget and has the highest since to mission ratio so far in space exploration. After the loses of teh Mars probes, and the possible desgin eras in the workhorse landers, and the fact that the mars express mission has nothing that is particular technicaly advanced over NASA (hell, chunks of it are based on NASA expertise), I'm sure it wont be long before politicians start asking questions. Is it time for an ISA? Well, maybee. For space exploration is science and science has always worked best in co-operation. The ISS is a red herring, largely political IMHO. But some of the European co-operative science programs are working very well, and would beneit both the USA and Europe if the USA got in on them. Cern is probably one of the most succesful European Co-operative efforts (and I'm a eurosceptic!), not to mention the Joint European Torus fusion project. ESA seems to be much better at getting things done for less cost (barring the occasional mess ups). However, if we want colonies on the moon and in space, forget NASA, ESA or an ISA. That needs industrial/commercial will, not from the state.
Juries, 12 good men and true... They are supposed to decide that it is beyond ALL reasonable doubt that the accusexd is guilty. Forensics attempts to proove de fact that the suspect commited the crime. It is evidence in the trial, not the trial it self. It's accuracy should not be questioned any more than a finger print, in fact, it is probably the most accurate piece of evidence in the whole courtroom come trial. However... it does not imply guilt. Guilt is determined by the Jury. By parading Scientists on teh dock ad reports and accuracy, we are removing the need for a jury... the decision is now in the hands of the labcoats. What needs to be adressed is the issue that, regardless of the accuracy of the tequnique, it does not decide guilt/innosence, it is a piece of evidence like any other, open to interpretation and to challenge. Tell the Jury to do it's job and not be blinded by Science.
AK! Nasa has to be the single CAUSE for the lack of space exploration in the long run. With the string of politicaly motivted and ultimately pointless Appolo missions that were dressed up to have direct benefits (rather than the spin off developmental technologies developed to support the programme), people look on Space Exploration as waste of time and money.... and they would be right. This is NASA's other problem, it's obsession with space exploration and developing new technologies. This is not condusive to what we really need, space exploitation... And there ARE realy good reasons for this. The moon has close to a million tonnes of Hellium 3 in it's top 3 meters of soil, 40kg of which will run a 1200 MW plant for about a year give clean fusion energy at efficient levels (easier to make work than the 'conventional' deuterium/tritium mix). This would keep humanity growing for 700 years. Then you have the exploitation of nickle deposits, a vacuum and low gravity to produce nickle foams. This would be briliant for aerospace technology, being a reasonably good thermal insulator whilst having the useful properties of metals combined with low densities. Space will never be efficiently run or explored by governments. We need industries to get in on this... which is why Japan and Germany will lead the way (both already have companies looking into a private space exploration, Japan specificaly in mining the moon).
No, the BBC is government funded, not Government Run. There are a whole host of agencies that are supposed to keep them totaly impartial. Thus the KLA are described as Guerilla's while other news stations called them freedom fighters. Long live PSB.
Slashdot Mirror
Soemeone made a mistake:
"at least in the Soviet Union as Mir is funded by a private company rather than the government and needs money desperately to keep the station running."
Soviet Union has been dad for some time....
Oh Come on. How do they know that violent people dont choose to play violent games. Coralation does not show causality.
Actually, the Eu law is effected through the ECA act, and hence could be repealed perfectly legally. We dont have a gauranteed freedom of speach becaus the system is permisive (actually, I though the US constiution was along ismmilar lines in that it prohibits the CREATION of a law limmiting free speech), hence you can say what you want providing you dont break the law (i.e. influencing a jury). Regarding Demon, I think a legal mistake has been made in classfying an ISP as a publisher rather than a carrier. For instance, it is treason (technically) to break intoa post box in the UK (though you would never get done for it) as the Royal Mail is property of the Queen and while in transit, so are the letters. On the other hand, you couldn't post a block of hard drugs and do the Queen for possesion with intent to supply, humerous though it may be to attempt to do so. Perhaps it would be best to have (yet another) Lords select commmity sti down and look at the Internet, as I think appyling precednts with other media dosn't work so well with the Internet which is drastically different from any other. Certainly, the problem is nothing to do with Free Speech or lack of formall written Constitution.
O.k. pedant, firstly, a constitution is not a piece of paper, which is where Americans all amke their mistake, it's a set of laws determining the governmnet of a country. They do NOT have to include a set of rights. When I say we have no written constiution, I mean that unlike the US, we have evolved a system of governmnet and an accomanying set of laws over about 1000 years (though most of the current lot date back to 1688 and the Restoration of the Monarchy after our wonderfuly brutal 'Republic' under Cromwell).
Now, our constitutional laws and acts may be just normal acts of Parliament, but they are damned easy to change around. And unlike our American cousins who are paranoid about their governmnets taking rights away from them left right and centre, we are not because we have two checks on Parliament and it's ellected Commons.
One, the House of Lords has the power to block, no matter the circumstance, ANY piece of legislation that delays or postpones a general ellection.
Two, the Queen can dismiss parliament at any point.
In order to get an ellected dictator who can impose a load of laws on us that limit our freedom (and though we have no freedoms laid out, they are assumed, we are free to act as long as we do not transgress the law, hence we don't have freedom of speach, yet we can talk our arses off provided we dont Libel someone etc, unlike the American system, wehre you have a right to freedom of Speach which can in theory be taken away from you.), we would have to have a person who is patient enough to fill the Lords entirely with people he trusted implicitly and who were likeminded (once in the Lords they are free from the need for Parliamentary support, which is why the more unellected the better), and then he has to get rid of the Queen for no good reason... and then.... and then he has to get the Military to swear alligience to him, and then becaue of the removal of the Monarch he has to re write the whole book from the begining anyway (as all the powers still stem from the Crown).
The moonarchy still has a high aprooval over here, it would be hideously hard to do and you would need to change the system anyway, and the two checks can intervene (as can the ellectorate) at any time. Now, if, by some fluke, an evil congress and President got into your system, they COULD play merry havock with your constitution, and ammend those pesky rights and mess the legislation and tie it up in knots so it is very hard to change back. On the other hand, over here, there is no one higher than the Parliament [because it acts with the power of an absolute monarch, bound only by the monarch (who is bound by the practicle limitations in that if she started acting like a dictator everyone would laugh for a few minutes and then we would become a republic) and the House of Lords, which is bound not (as T Blair like to think) by Commons legislation but by Upper House conventions, like the Sailsbury convention which is going out the window because the Genius that is Mr Blair dosn't grasp that the collective illigitimacy stop us getting situations like the CTB Treaty fiasco.]... and so a future Parliament would be able to reverse any changes in a week.
All in all the sure fire way to protect your rights is to make sure you vote reponsibly, becaue any legal system can be perverted, but as Douglas Adams would have people put on every Machine "Something that hardly ever goes wrong can be fixed, something that never goes wrong is not only hard to fix, but is often very hard to get at in the first place." And anyway, the Parliamentary system has stood us in good sted for 311 years now with no single Constitution as a special document, yet the US managed to have a war over the interpretation of it's. Hmmm... teething problems?
O.k. pedant, firstly, a constitution is not a piece of paper, which is where Americans all amke their mistake, it's a set of laws determining the governmnet of a country. They do NOT have to include a set of rights. When I say we have no written constiution, I mean that unlike the US, we have evolved a system of governmnet and an accomanying set of laws over about 1000 years (though most of the current lot date back to 1688 and the Restoration of the Monarchy after our wonderfuly brutal 'Republic' under Cromwell). Now, our constitutional laws and acts may be just normal acts of Parliament, but they are damned easy to change around. And unlike our American cousins who are paranoid about their governmnets taking rights away from them left right and centre, we are not because we have two checks on Parliament and it's ellected Commons. One, the House of Lords has the power to block, no matter the circumstance, ANY piece of legislation that delays or postpones a general ellection. Two, the Queen can dismiss parliament at any point. In order to get an ellected dictator who can impose a load of laws on us that limit our freedom (and though we have no freedoms laid out, they are assumed, we are free to act as long as we do not transgress the law, hence we don't have freedom of speach, yet we can talk our arses off provided we dont Libel someone etc, unlike the American system, wehre you have a right to freedom of Speach which can in theory be taken away from you.), we would have to have a person who is patient enough to fill the ords entirely wiht people he trusted implicitly and who were likeminded (once in the Lords they are free from the need for Parliamentary support, which is why the more unellected the better), and teh he has to get rid of the Queen for no good reason... and then.... and tehn he has to get the Military to swear alligience to him, and then becaue of the removal of the Monarch he has to re write the whole book from the begining anyway (as all the powers still stem from the Crown). The moonarchy still has a high aprooval over here, it would be hideously hard to do and you would need to change the system anyway, and the two checks can intervene (as can the ellectorat) at any time. Now, if, by some fluke, an evil congress and President got into your system, they COULD play merry havock with your constitution, and ammend those pesky rights and mess the legislation and tie it up in knots so it is very hard to change back. On the other hand, over here, three is no one higher than the Parliament [because it acts with the power of an absolute monarch, bound only by the monarch (who is bound by the practicle limitations in that if she started acting like a dictator everyone would laugh for a few minutes and then we would become a republic) and the House of Lords, which is bound not (as T Blair like to think) by Commons legislation but by Upper House conventions, like the Sailsbury convention which is going out the window because the Genius that is Mr Blair dosn't grasp that the collective illigitimacy stop us getting situations like the CTB Treaty fiasco.]... and so a future Parliament would be able to reverse any changes in a week. All in all the sure fire way to protect your rights is to make sure you vote reponsibly, becaue any legal system can be perverted, but as Douglas Adams would have people put on every Machine "Something that hardly ever goes wrong can be fixed, something that never goes wrong is not only hard to fix, but is often very hard to get at in the first place." And anyway, the Parliamentary system has stood us in good sted for 311 years now with no single Constitution as a special document, yet the US managed to have a war over the interpretation of it's. Hmmm... teething problems?
Rubbish! Our system of government does have a constiution, and a written one to boot, it's split over many, many documents, and it forms a far les legalistic culture. We are permited to do as we will provided it does not transgress a law. Arbirtary detention? thats a gross exadgeration. I LIKE our system. It can't get too bad because then our checks and ballneces can come into play, you know, the big scary illigitament ones like the Lords and teh Monarch, and they can only act if there is popular cause, because otherwise they would egt ignored. This is whyan unwriten constiution is better, it if more flexible.
Ah, but you dont collapse into the answer, you collapse into a type of answer that has a global property, hence massively reducing your workload. (i.e. if you know your looking for an encrypted string of words, you would look for some property that indicated words, and you can hone it ever more specifically so that you look for something resembling English rather than 'asdgskljhflash'
Yessss..... but what if while one side is busy designing loads of little softare tanks, the other side launches a REAL Cruise missile?
Hydrogen can not fuse with itself, it has only a proton, and so can not bond to another proton. However, Deuterium has a neutron, so it can fuse with hydrogen to form Helium three, or with tritium, which ahs two neutrons, to form helium four. a 50:50 mix of deuterium and tritium is what will be used to make commericial power stations work, though Helium 3 and tritium would be better (the only large scale source of helium 3 is on the moons surface, trapped from cosmic rays etc.) Tritium would bred in the reactor by absorbing a neutron given out in the reaction with lithium 7 to give tritium, thus the REAL fuel for commerical fusion would be Lithium and Deuterium. Deuterium has a natural abundancy of 0.015% in nature. Tritium, having a half life of 12.5 years is not found naturally.
It is THE most ugly building, with the single exception of the Mwheel, which stalks me all over Westminster (where I go to school). And it's in the wrong place, Big Ben was designed to produce a clever optical illusion, looking tall and thin, the wheel provides a new frame of reference, and Big Ben now looks short and fat.
Can you say "Elite-style-free-for-all-trading-and-fighting-and -joining-alliance/empire-in-permenant-un iverse-whilst-doing-what-the-hell-you-want-when-yo u-want" all in one breath and not die of a heart attack for sheer joy? But I suspect it will be a lame mission based fighter sim or a massive online battle of hoth. I want an online Elite (preferably with the full inertial flight model that allowed for 'fun' (complicated) flying rather than point and fly used by Xwing Games. Anyway, I want to fly a Star Destroyer, dum-dum dedumdumdum domdomdom, dum-dum dedumdumdum domdomdom pa pa pa pom papa pom papa, pe pe pe pa pompe pa pompe...
SO keep copying the orrgional.
The NSA and Echelon were set up as post war Signals Intlegence. It's an Anglophone alliance, with listening posts in Canada, the USA, the UK, and Australia. GCHQ (the British NSA) and the NSA work together at Menwith Hill in Yorkshire where the European intelignce is collected. The point is that it is ILLEGAL under the terms of the agreement to do what the NSA is doing, handing on the information. It may surprise you to know that GCHQ officers work at the US's coresponding base. But, as GCHQ is more acuontable, US commercial secrets are not passed on to British Competetors. I find it total unacceptable that the NSA should be doing this using OUR equipment on OUR land.
benn readin Red Dwarf novels again?
Quantum computing is not going to replace digital computing, even if we get nice solid state qubits, the kind of calculations they can do is limited. You would have quantum co-processor to do things that Quantum computers do best (finding ALL the posssible results to a number of permutations and choosing global properties in teh answer to narrow down.)
News papares are more accountable to telling the truth than the internet. If you want information that you can trust (certain sites and certain papaers excluded), then a paper is best. The Paper offers somthing the internet dosnt (and this is how they will survive), information sorting. Already, it is getting harder and harder to find what is relevant to YOU on the net. Papers can serve as a filter for this sea of information. I can also read a papare on the tube. I cnat browse the internet on the tube.
NO one ever replies to me.... Anyway, after you account for absorbtion by clouds and air, it is infact 500W per square meter. Making the area required 1.2 Million square meters. The average output of a modern powrestatin is 1000Mw. So, for one average powrstation: you need an area of 2 million square kilometers, again assuming 100% efficieny. It's plainly not feasable.
Goddamit! The correct prcedure is observation, hypothesis, experimental falsification, paper, peer review, publishment, repeat experimentation, aceptance and Scientific proof. If this thing does turn out to be good (and bear in mind if it gets it's energy from the sun ALL it is a rather efficient solar cell, after all, I dont think they have found a way to make Algae break the law of conservation of Energy, and if it does turn out to be feasable... (work out the energy density of the sun and it is NOT feasable for large scale gneration of power. The Earth recieves 1.3 KW per square meter of sunlight, so you would have to have an area of 462 thousand square meters to have an equivalent of a 600MW Powerstation. 600000/1.3=461538.5, and that assumes that ALL of the solar energy is being turned into hydrogen gass.) And then you have to work out how to collect the hydrogen bubling off. Thats a lot of water, a lot of neutrients, and a lot of plastic/glass sheeting (the only way I can think of imidiately to allow sunlight through but retain hydrogen.) This leads me to the inescapable conclusion that these guys are not talking about saving the world, they are fishing for a research grant. This is probably why they went for a press release rather than the normal procedures, because the peer review would involve people doing feasability studies, and it would appear asa comment. It would become a scientific curiosity rather thana great new idea. BUT... it does have aplication for making hydrocarbons I guess. But for power generation, no.
The problem with taht idea is that while you are correct in saying that Paradigm shifts dont occur until a gneeration change, Quantum Mechanics is the most 'prooved' scientific theory we have. Dark matter has little to do with black holes. Given that our understanding of Gravity is correct (as we think it is), the universe is behaving rather oddly. So we try to account for the missing matter. It's termed dark becasue we cant see it, I.e. not stars. So Dark matter can consist of unacounted mass in neutrinos (assumed until recently to be negligable), WIMPS, Brown Dwarfs, dust clouds, HALOS etc. Alternatively, Gravity and mass are some of the main problems with the standard model. I'm willing to bet the answer is partly to do with our understanding of the way gravity behaves.
NASA has some REAL fundemental problembs, and it's all down to beaurocracy and lack of real direction. It's going to be vry bad for NASA if the ESA's Mars Express mission works out 100%. Even worse if Beagle 2 performs properly. Not only does it have a certain (if eccentric) style to it, namely carrying a piece of artwork by Damien Hurst and a specialy composed Blur track to announce it's all clear and landed, but it was done on a shoestring budget and has the highest since to mission ratio so far in space exploration. After the loses of teh Mars probes, and the possible desgin eras in the workhorse landers, and the fact that the mars express mission has nothing that is particular technicaly advanced over NASA (hell, chunks of it are based on NASA expertise), I'm sure it wont be long before politicians start asking questions. Is it time for an ISA? Well, maybee. For space exploration is science and science has always worked best in co-operation. The ISS is a red herring, largely political IMHO. But some of the European co-operative science programs are working very well, and would beneit both the USA and Europe if the USA got in on them. Cern is probably one of the most succesful European Co-operative efforts (and I'm a eurosceptic!), not to mention the Joint European Torus fusion project. ESA seems to be much better at getting things done for less cost (barring the occasional mess ups). However, if we want colonies on the moon and in space, forget NASA, ESA or an ISA. That needs industrial/commercial will, not from the state.
Juries, 12 good men and true... They are supposed to decide that it is beyond ALL reasonable doubt that the accusexd is guilty. Forensics attempts to proove de fact that the suspect commited the crime. It is evidence in the trial, not the trial it self. It's accuracy should not be questioned any more than a finger print, in fact, it is probably the most accurate piece of evidence in the whole courtroom come trial. However... it does not imply guilt. Guilt is determined by the Jury. By parading Scientists on teh dock ad reports and accuracy, we are removing the need for a jury... the decision is now in the hands of the labcoats. What needs to be adressed is the issue that, regardless of the accuracy of the tequnique, it does not decide guilt/innosence, it is a piece of evidence like any other, open to interpretation and to challenge. Tell the Jury to do it's job and not be blinded by Science.
AK! Nasa has to be the single CAUSE for the lack of space exploration in the long run. With the string of politicaly motivted and ultimately pointless Appolo missions that were dressed up to have direct benefits (rather than the spin off developmental technologies developed to support the programme), people look on Space Exploration as waste of time and money.... and they would be right. This is NASA's other problem, it's obsession with space exploration and developing new technologies. This is not condusive to what we really need, space exploitation... And there ARE realy good reasons for this. The moon has close to a million tonnes of Hellium 3 in it's top 3 meters of soil, 40kg of which will run a 1200 MW plant for about a year give clean fusion energy at efficient levels (easier to make work than the 'conventional' deuterium/tritium mix). This would keep humanity growing for 700 years. Then you have the exploitation of nickle deposits, a vacuum and low gravity to produce nickle foams. This would be briliant for aerospace technology, being a reasonably good thermal insulator whilst having the useful properties of metals combined with low densities. Space will never be efficiently run or explored by governments. We need industries to get in on this... which is why Japan and Germany will lead the way (both already have companies looking into a private space exploration, Japan specificaly in mining the moon).
No, the BBC is government funded, not Government Run. There are a whole host of agencies that are supposed to keep them totaly impartial. Thus the KLA are described as Guerilla's while other news stations called them freedom fighters. Long live PSB.