A precinct is 10,000 people or more. Most systems use a paper based system somehow; how quickly
can you count 10,000 pieces of paper times however many offices were on it (30? 60?)?
Here in Brevard County, FL, we finally entered the Twentieth Century this election. Ballots are cast by darkening bubbles on a Scan-Tron type sheet, and each ballot is scanned and the results tabulated right at the ballot box. A recount means mearly running the ballots through the box again. So sweat!
Even those awful holepunch cards are machine-read and tabulated. Just feed them through again! The only thing that has to be sorted out is the write-in candidates, but that was the case the first time around too!
Each county can have a different ballot; here in Brevard we used a LARGE Scan-Tron type ballot and the ballot was tallied as you slid it into the box! No hole punching for us on the Space Coast!
Have you even read the Constitution? What does it say in the first and tenth Amendments?
The first amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What is so hard to see in that first phrase, "Congress shall?" There is no such reqirement on the several states! If James Madison had meant something different, he would have written it! The states, local governments and school boards do not equal "Congress," no matter what some anti-American, anti-Constitution judge says!
Furthermore, look at the tenth amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
In other words, if the power is not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, it belongs to the states or the people! Again, how hard is this?
Like: "If we're going to teach
personal religious beliefs in the public schools, let's tell students what Jesus had to say against homosexuality:
(a blank column, followed by)
That's right: Absolutely Nothing! . .."
In that case, you've never read Liviticus, have you? Or why it's called "Sodomy?" Jesus and his apostles continually affirmed the scriptures (now called the "Old Testament" by Christians), even mentioning Sodom by name! To say that Jesus had nothing against it simply because he did not specifically teach about it is misleading and wrong!
The States were always meant to be soveriegn over their own lands; if they want to set up a state government, fine. The Federal government can't because of the First Amendment.
Do you not want this to happen? Become involved in your state government. The Federal government was only supposed to protect the several states from outside attack and themselves. Beyond that, the states were to be free to govern themselves!
Phillips, like the founding fathers, knew that the concentration of power leads to corruption! This is a fallen world, and men do not always do what is right, but what is in their evil hearts to do. By keeping power spread around, it makes evil harder to accomplish!
I think a "strict interpretation of the constitution" is something that we've needed to get back to for quite some time.
Finally, although I disagree with your conclusion, I'm happy that you have heard and are somewhat knowledgeable about the party. They've not got a lot of press have they? They were successful, however in getting on the ballot in forty-two states for only $300,000!
The Supreme Court, or any Federal court in the United States, has no power to make law. I quote
Article I of the Constitution:
Section. 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and
House of Representatives.
Note also that justices do not get lifetime appointments, as popularly believed... I quote from Article III, which states that they only serve as long as they have "good Behavior":
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress
may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices
during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished
during their Continuance in Office.
If today's Federal government was run as it truly should be, the appointment of Supreme Court justices would not be such a big deal, as they are subject to recall!
In the primary season, since I'm registered as a Republican, I voted for Keyes. Alan Keyes possessed what I thought to be the best vision for the future of America: A return to a self-consistant set of core values. A belief and faith in a higher authority than men and government. A true, if disturbing to some, vision of a brighter tomorrow.
Of course, Keyes did not win the nomination. I, like many I'm sure, was disappointed.
Today I voted Constitution Party. As a Republican I feel like Ronald Reagan with the Democrats-- I didn't leave them, they left me! While I understand that many, such as members of my own family, will vote out of expediency today for Bush, I can never hope to hit a home run if I only bunt. I see a vote for *either* major candidate today as a bunt.
Come on! If you're truly liberal in your views, do you really want a wishy- washy- kind- of- liberal- but- it- depends- on- polling- data like Gore? I do not at all agree with him, but Nader is at least self-consistant and honest. I respect that. On the other hand, do I want to vote for a wishy- washy- kind- of- conservative- but- mostly- moderate- because- thats- what- the- polls- want Bush? No. It is my sincere belief that people should absolutely vote their convictions and not out of expediency. My vote for Phillips was not a vote for Gore. Your vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush.
Have faith that whatever the outcome of today's elections, there is a sovereign God that has directed it. His will is unswaying and can't be defeated. Our own ballots have been ordained to carry out his plan. In that faith I can vote my convictions with the assurance. I don't have to worry about the "wrong" men getting "in." God even uses the unrighteous, and even irreligious, to carry out his own ends!
The one thing I don't understand is why didn't the author generalize this to cover all engineering disciplines? I, for one, am on one of these right now, and I'm a microwave circuits engineer.
High-altitude control problems are, in fact, due to the lowered air pressure, but not because the controls get "touchy." That is, control forces don't get lighter with altitude.
Instead, what happens is a narrowing of the operational envelope that the wing operates in. At extreme altitude, there is not much difference between going supersonic and stalling (flow seperation from the wing, causing loss of lift).
In the U-2 especially, turns must be made very gradually and banks are very shallow. The inside wing is likely to stall, and the outside wing is likely to go supersonic. It's hard for the pilot to tell what's causing his airframe vibration: inboard wing stall our outboard wing mach buffet.
That is, until a wing drops. If the inside wing falls out, it was a stall. Counteract with rudder; a stalled condition is only worsened by applying opposite aileron to lift the drooping wing.
That's funny; I did not know that I ever had it.
I've voted in two presidential elections, casting ballots for losing candidates both times. I've voted for county commissioners that have lost. I've voted for representitaves that have lost. I've voted for senators that have lost.
To take something back implys that one had it before. That's not the case!
It's a state-level law anyway, so going to the
Federal government is the wrong thing to do.
Find your state representitives. Many of them are up for election this year, so you don't have much excuse for (well, after the first Tuesday in November) not knowing who they are!
We (the United States) actually fielded a missle defence system (as opposed to anti-aircraft) in the early 1970's. It was the Safeguard program, descended from the Sentinel program that was a follow-on to the Nike-X.
Sentinel was meant to be a "shield" over the whole country; Safeguard was much smaller in scope and was meant basically only to preserve our own missles from first-strike attacks. Only one Safeguard installation ever came on-line, and it was closed after less than one year.
Safeguard consisted of two missles and two RADAR systems. The first radar called the Perimeter Acquisition Radar (PAR) was used for long-distance detection of incoming re-entry vehicles (RVs). Today this radar I *think* is still used for tracking orbiting objects. If an RV was detected, the first missle would be launched. This missle, called the Spartan, was based on the Nike Zeus missle, but had more power, and was used for exo-atmospheric interception. The Spartan used a nuclear warhead and depended on the X-rays generated by the warhead to disable incoming bombs.
In the event of the Spartans failing in their mission, another radar and missle system came into play. The Missle Site Radar (MSR) provided pinpoint guidance to a new kind of missle, the Sprint. Sprint missles were the highest accelerating missle ever fielded by the United States, leaving their silos already supersonic and accelerating towards the target at 100 G's. The Sprint had a range of about 25 miles, and was intended as a last-ditch interceptor. It too was nuclear-equipped, but could use blast as well as radiation to disable incoming RV's.
The sprint went from zero to Mach 10 in a mere five seconds. The missle was only about fifteen feet tall and had an ablative nose cone to dissapate the heat generated by its extreme velocities. It was steered by injecting cool gas into the exhaust stream of the rockets; it would turn in the direction that the gas was fired from.
Contamination:
As you know, the materials used in modern nuclear weapons is actually quite small. The smallest weapon fielded by the US was the Davey Crocket, and it only weighed about 50 pounds. Of that, only thirteen or so was the nuclear fuel.
I'd be more worried about irradiated soil (fallout) than anything directly from the bomb. A good reference for American nuclear tests (atmospheric and surface bursts, anyway) can be found at this page.
This country was founded, mainly, by people of English ancestory; I don't think they rounded up the English-Americans during the Revolutionary War, did they?
The American citizens of Japanese background were nothing more than thousands of Wen Ho Lees: they'd done nothing wrong, but the people in charge needed to look like they were doing something. Well, something is almost always the wrong thing to do.
This whole thing is just as dumb as the
"gotta have new electronic laws" stuff.
It's my opinion that current law, if
applied in a rational, reasoned manner,
is adequate to the task. New laws aren't
neccessary.
New ways of forming plurals in English
for words ending in "x" or "s" are not
needed either.
What is needed is a better grasp
of English grammar by those attempting
to use the language. Perhaps I was
fortunate, but when I was in school I had
teachers who cared about our
ability to write properly. In fact, my
senior year of high school, thanks to
Ms. McCord, that's all we did: write.
Of course, I get the feeling that most
teachers were not even in the same league
as her.
It's not a supply problem; there's plenty of petroleum to go around. It's a political problem.
First of all, why are we importing what we've already got? The Clinton administration has, for some reason, banned domestic exploration just about everywhere. What oil we do produce here is shuttled off to other countries (from Alaska). This dependence on foriegn oil is calculated, I'm sure.
Then there's the people of the Middle East, and I get the idea that overall we're not their best friends. They tolerate us because we can beat them in an all-out war, but we are definitely not liked. They really have no reason to be nice, price-wise, do they?
That's actually what trains have been doing for years. Diesel trains are all actually diesel-electric; the engines run generators that in turn power electric motors on the wheels.
Of course, it's done there for different reasons: it's easier to get the incredibly high starting torque required to get a train going via electric motors than through direct mechanical means.
Slashdot Mirror
As the great philospher, Foghorn Leghorn, once said: "It's a joke, son!"
I was making light of her tendancy to use military-sized force instead of a courtroom to do her work: Waco and Elian's seizure as two examples.
Even those awful holepunch cards are machine-read and tabulated. Just feed them through again! The only thing that has to be sorted out is the write-in candidates, but that was the case the first time around too!
Each county can have a different ballot; here in Brevard we used a LARGE Scan-Tron type ballot and the ballot was tallied as you slid it into the box! No hole punching for us on the Space Coast!
Also, didn't you get the words backwards? Isn't it "General Attorney," not "Attorney General?" :^)
The first amendment says:
What is so hard to see in that first phrase, "Congress shall?" There is no such reqirement on the several states! If James Madison had meant something different, he would have written it! The states, local governments and school boards do not equal "Congress," no matter what some anti-American, anti-Constitution judge says!Furthermore, look at the tenth amendment:
In other words, if the power is not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, it belongs to the states or the people! Again, how hard is this?The States were always meant to be soveriegn over their own lands; if they want to set up a state government, fine. The Federal government can't because of the First Amendment.
Do you not want this to happen? Become involved in your state government. The Federal government was only supposed to protect the several states from outside attack and themselves. Beyond that, the states were to be free to govern themselves!
Phillips, like the founding fathers, knew that the concentration of power leads to corruption! This is a fallen world, and men do not always do what is right, but what is in their evil hearts to do. By keeping power spread around, it makes evil harder to accomplish!
I think a "strict interpretation of the constitution" is something that we've needed to get back to for quite some time.
Finally, although I disagree with your conclusion, I'm happy that you have heard and are somewhat knowledgeable about the party. They've not got a lot of press have they? They were successful, however in getting on the ballot in forty-two states for only $300,000!
Of course, Keyes did not win the nomination. I, like many I'm sure, was disappointed.
Today I voted Constitution Party. As a Republican I feel like Ronald Reagan with the Democrats-- I didn't leave them, they left me! While I understand that many, such as members of my own family, will vote out of expediency today for Bush, I can never hope to hit a home run if I only bunt. I see a vote for *either* major candidate today as a bunt.
Come on! If you're truly liberal in your views, do you really want a wishy- washy- kind- of- liberal- but- it- depends- on- polling- data like Gore? I do not at all agree with him, but Nader is at least self-consistant and honest. I respect that. On the other hand, do I want to vote for a wishy- washy- kind- of- conservative- but- mostly- moderate- because- thats- what- the- polls- want Bush? No. It is my sincere belief that people should absolutely vote their convictions and not out of expediency. My vote for Phillips was not a vote for Gore. Your vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush.
Have faith that whatever the outcome of today's elections, there is a sovereign God that has directed it. His will is unswaying and can't be defeated. Our own ballots have been ordained to carry out his plan. In that faith I can vote my convictions with the assurance. I don't have to worry about the "wrong" men getting "in." God even uses the unrighteous, and even irreligious, to carry out his own ends!
I thought it did-- you can block stories by Jon Katz.
Instead, what happens is a narrowing of the operational envelope that the wing operates in. At extreme altitude, there is not much difference between going supersonic and stalling (flow seperation from the wing, causing loss of lift).
In the U-2 especially, turns must be made very gradually and banks are very shallow. The inside wing is likely to stall, and the outside wing is likely to go supersonic. It's hard for the pilot to tell what's causing his airframe vibration: inboard wing stall our outboard wing mach buffet.
That is, until a wing drops. If the inside wing falls out, it was a stall. Counteract with rudder; a stalled condition is only worsened by applying opposite aileron to lift the drooping wing.
At sea level it's about 640 MPH, but even as low as 50,000 feet (where the Concorde cruises) that same speed is more like Mach 2.
Since the speed of sound decreases with decreasing velocity, I'd not be surprized to see it down to less than 200 MPH up there.
The Soviet Union sent several probes to Venus, and in 1975 they even got photographs from the surface.
But you said they were here for women!
I know that invoking that name is going to be modded down as flaimbait, but he did say that and it is basically what wnissen said!
That's funny; I did not know that I ever had it. I've voted in two presidential elections, casting ballots for losing candidates both times. I've voted for county commissioners that have lost. I've voted for representitaves that have lost. I've voted for senators that have lost.
To take something back implys that one had it before. That's not the case!
Find your state representitives. Many of them are up for election this year, so you don't have much excuse for (well, after the first Tuesday in November) not knowing who they are!
Jeff
We (the United States) actually fielded a missle defence system (as opposed to anti-aircraft) in the early 1970's. It was the Safeguard program, descended from the Sentinel program that was a follow-on to the Nike-X.
Sentinel was meant to be a "shield" over the whole country; Safeguard was much smaller in scope and was meant basically only to preserve our own missles from first-strike attacks. Only one Safeguard installation ever came on-line, and it was closed after less than one year.
Safeguard consisted of two missles and two RADAR systems. The first radar called the Perimeter Acquisition Radar (PAR) was used for long-distance detection of incoming re-entry vehicles (RVs). Today this radar I *think* is still used for tracking orbiting objects. If an RV was detected, the first missle would be launched. This missle, called the Spartan, was based on the Nike Zeus missle, but had more power, and was used for exo-atmospheric interception. The Spartan used a nuclear warhead and depended on the X-rays generated by the warhead to disable incoming bombs.
In the event of the Spartans failing in their mission, another radar and missle system came into play. The Missle Site Radar (MSR) provided pinpoint guidance to a new kind of missle, the Sprint. Sprint missles were the highest accelerating missle ever fielded by the United States, leaving their silos already supersonic and accelerating towards the target at 100 G's. The Sprint had a range of about 25 miles, and was intended as a last-ditch interceptor. It too was nuclear-equipped, but could use blast as well as radiation to disable incoming RV's.
The sprint went from zero to Mach 10 in a mere five seconds. The missle was only about fifteen feet tall and had an ablative nose cone to dissapate the heat generated by its extreme velocities. It was steered by injecting cool gas into the exhaust stream of the rockets; it would turn in the direction that the gas was fired from.
Contamination:
As you know, the materials used in modern nuclear weapons is actually quite small. The smallest weapon fielded by the US was the Davey Crocket, and it only weighed about 50 pounds. Of that, only thirteen or so was the nuclear fuel.
I'd be more worried about irradiated soil (fallout) than anything directly from the bomb. A good reference for American nuclear tests (atmospheric and surface bursts, anyway) can be found at this page.
References: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/safeguard. htm
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/vigilant/chap 4.html
http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/mpainf/missiles/HNik eX.html
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nike_x.htm
Jeff
This country was founded, mainly, by people of English ancestory; I don't think they rounded up the English-Americans during the Revolutionary War, did they?
The American citizens of Japanese background were nothing more than thousands of Wen Ho Lees: they'd done nothing wrong, but the people in charge needed to look like they were doing something. Well, something is almost always the wrong thing to do.
Jeff
Your sentence, if it was correct, would read:
This whole thing is just as dumb as the "gotta have new electronic laws" stuff. It's my opinion that current law, if applied in a rational, reasoned manner, is adequate to the task. New laws aren't neccessary.New ways of forming plurals in English for words ending in "x" or "s" are not needed either.
What is needed is a better grasp of English grammar by those attempting to use the language. Perhaps I was fortunate, but when I was in school I had teachers who cared about our ability to write properly. In fact, my senior year of high school, thanks to Ms. McCord, that's all we did: write.
Of course, I get the feeling that most teachers were not even in the same league as her.
Jeff
First of all, why are we importing what we've already got? The Clinton administration has, for some reason, banned domestic exploration just about everywhere. What oil we do produce here is shuttled off to other countries (from Alaska). This dependence on foriegn oil is calculated, I'm sure.
Then there's the people of the Middle East, and I get the idea that overall we're not their best friends. They tolerate us because we can beat them in an all-out war, but we are definitely not liked. They really have no reason to be nice, price-wise, do they?
Jeff
Jeff
Of course, it's done there for different reasons: it's easier to get the incredibly high starting torque required to get a train going via electric motors than through direct mechanical means.
Jeff