From http://home.mira.net/~radacorp/ground_effect.html:
From a regulatory point of view, the maximum Ground Effect height is seen as the service ceiling (the height above which the craft will not sustain flight under its own power). If the craft can operate full time above this height, it legally becomes an aeroplane and must meet all of the associated regulations. As examples of this, Radacraft G-35 with a wingspan of 6.5 metres and has a service ceiling of 9 metres (30 feet) approximately. The C-850 has a projected wingspan of 8.5 metres; it's service ceiling therefore will be 12 metres (40 feet) approximately.
After discussing it with RMS [stallman.org], we agreed it would be possible:
I agree with most of RMS's views, and I applaud the GPL. However, why do people give him veto power over their own ideas? I can understand discussing a subject like this with him, since he has probably thought about it more than the rest of us, but I get the idea that many people are unwilling to try an idea unless RMS approves it. As with anything, people need to sift through RMS's ideas and decide for themselves which are gems and which are just BS.
"In advance of the movie Lord of The Rings scheduled for release in December, we'll be writing and talking about the trilogy itself as well as other works the original books have inspired."
The God of this World is not merciful!!! Please don't clutter the front page with this stuff!!
"In advance of the movie Lord of The Rings scheduled for release in December, we'll be writing and talking about the trilogy itself as well as other works the original books have inspired."
The God of this World is not merciful!!! Please don't clutter the front page with this stuff!!
> PS - When I started this post, there were no
> posts. Since I tried to actually put some
> (admittedly not a huge amount) care into what I
> was saying, I guess this wont be a "First
> Post". I tried, though...
I don't think that it's just you. I think a lot of people are uninformed or misinformed about this issue. From what I've seen the press has done a very bad job on explaining the following:
-- Is the government outlawing research, not allowing any funding for it, or not allowing _government_ funding? I've heard several reporters say "outlaw."
-- Are these cells being created and destroyed just for research? Just destroyed? Are they even viable?
-- Why is the President making this decision? Isn't it a legislative decision?
I fear that sloppy reporting is really distorting public opinion on this issue.
I don't think the insects had to be alive. They probably started by examining the anatomy of the insects, and observing what chemicals they had in them to compile a list of possible activation chemicals. Then they just extracted the base chemical, tested the potential activation chemicals one by one, and watched what happened. (Who provided funding for this kind of research is another question....)
Why do they glow when you smash them? Probably because you rupture the sacks they carry the chemicals in and they mix. After the reaction is fully carried out and the chemicals are used up, the glow fades away.
"Now on a funnier note, imagine if we as people had that, well males rather. Our faces would be swollen from getting slapped at the beach by our partners."
That's just plain dumb. I'm not going to even bother commenting on that.
Didn't you take Government in high school? This _is_ checks and balances. The Executive branch (G. W.) believes that the Judicial is wrong in persuing Microsoft, so it is checking the Judicial branch's power.
"When I began my physical studies [in Munich in 1874] and sought advice
from my venerable teacher Philipp von Jolly... he portrayed to me physics
as a highly developed, almost fully matured science... Possibly in one or
another nook there would perhaps be a dust particle or a small bubble to
be examined and classified, but the system as a whole stood there fairly
secured, and theoretical physics approached visibly that degree of
perfection which, for example, geometry has had already for centuries."
- from a 1924 lecture by Max Planck (Sci. Am, Feb 1996 p.10)
From 1888:
"We are probably nearing the limit of all we can know about astronomy."
- Simon Newcomb, astronomer
From 1894:
"The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have
all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the
possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new
discoveries is exceedingly remote.... Our future discoveries must be
looked for in the sixth place of decimals." Albert. A. Michelson,
speech at the dedication of Ryerson Physics Lab, U. of Chicago 1894
(Especially interesting since Einstein used Michelson's experiments with light
as the basis for special relativity.)
From 1900:
"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains
is more and more precise measurement" - Lord Kelvin
From a bit earlier:
"So many centuries after the Creation, it is unlikely that anyone could
find hitherto unknown lands of any value."
- Spanish Royal Commission, rejecting Christopher Columbus' proposal
to sail west.
who decides if it is murder or self-defense?
who decides if it is stealing or borrowing?
who decides whether cigarette ads are deception or just ordinary propaganda?
who decides if microsoft is abusing it's power as a monopoly or just trying to stay competitive in the marketplace?
there are decisions like this being made in the courts all the time. in every one of its cases the supreme court decides if a particular act qualifies as a freedom or if it should be punished as a felony.
If someone hacks your system, doesn't seem to break anything, and simply sends you an anonymous message saying so, you REALLY don't know what went on.
If you claim that the company doesn't know what went on, then it is implied that there isn't any evidence that the hacker did something "bad." What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
Slashdot Mirror
From http://home.mira.net/~radacorp/ground_effect.html:
From a regulatory point of view, the maximum Ground Effect height is seen as the service ceiling (the height above which the craft will not sustain flight under its own power). If the craft can operate full time above this height, it legally becomes an aeroplane and must meet all of the associated regulations. As examples of this, Radacraft G-35 with a wingspan of 6.5 metres and has a service ceiling of 9 metres (30 feet) approximately. The C-850 has a projected wingspan of 8.5 metres; it's service ceiling therefore will be 12 metres (40 feet) approximately.
Make sure you delete all your old profile and setting files before you reinstall again. Installing over a previous version causes problems.
t all
see: http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla0.9.9/#ins
Why would refueling be preferable to recharging?
To increase the portability of battery powered laptop, you need to add more or bigger batteries.
With this scheme, you would just increase the size of your fuel tank. You don't need to add additional fuel cells. Much cheaper and much easier.
After discussing it with RMS [stallman.org], we agreed it would be possible:
I agree with most of RMS's views, and I applaud the GPL. However, why do people give him veto power over their own ideas? I can understand discussing a subject like this with him, since he has probably thought about it more than the rest of us, but I get the idea that many people are unwilling to try an idea unless RMS approves it. As with anything, people need to sift through RMS's ideas and decide for themselves which are gems and which are just BS.
Competition is good for superconductors.
Competition is bad for slashdot articles.
"In advance of the movie Lord of The Rings scheduled for release in December, we'll be writing and talking about the trilogy itself as well as other works the original books have inspired."
The God of this World is not merciful!!! Please don't clutter the front page with this stuff!!
"In advance of the movie Lord of The Rings scheduled for release in December, we'll be writing and talking about the trilogy itself as well as other works the original books have inspired."
The God of this World is not merciful!!! Please don't clutter the front page with this stuff!!
> PS - When I started this post, there were no
> posts. Since I tried to actually put some
> (admittedly not a huge amount) care into what I
> was saying, I guess this wont be a "First
> Post". I tried, though...
Awwww. There there. Do you want a cookie?
Ha! Taco can't spell.
Why didn't he just sandblast the paint off?
I don't think that it's just you. I think a lot of people are uninformed or misinformed about this issue. From what I've seen the press has done a very bad job on explaining the following:
-- Is the government outlawing research, not allowing any funding for it, or not allowing _government_ funding? I've heard several reporters say "outlaw."
-- Are these cells being created and destroyed just for research? Just destroyed? Are they even viable?
-- Why is the President making this decision? Isn't it a legislative decision?
I fear that sloppy reporting is really distorting public opinion on this issue.
"Who elected these phucks that are doing this? "
Oops. This might have been another accident. Whe are elderly Floridans going to learn how to vote?
"Now, a US team has been able to show that the simple molecule nitric oxide acts as the on-off "button"."
Funny, I usually see stuff start to glow when I inhale some nitrous...
Oh, NO not N20. That extra N makes a lot of difference.
I don't think the insects had to be alive. They probably started by examining the anatomy of the insects, and observing what chemicals they had in them to compile a list of possible activation chemicals. Then they just extracted the base chemical, tested the potential activation chemicals one by one, and watched what happened. (Who provided funding for this kind of research is another question....)
Why do they glow when you smash them? Probably because you rupture the sacks they carry the chemicals in and they mix. After the reaction is fully carried out and the chemicals are used up, the glow fades away.
"Now on a funnier note, imagine if we as people had that, well males rather. Our faces would be swollen from getting slapped at the beach by our partners."
That's just plain dumb. I'm not going to even bother commenting on that.
What a great scam for AOL chat rooms...
"Hi. I'm doing a study on the passwords that computer users choose. I was wondering if I could ask you a few questions..."
My mom uses the same 4-digit year for all her passwords: PIN, AOL, hotmail, etc. She doesn't understand why I think it's stupid.
"Checks and balances are all well and good... "
Didn't you take Government in high school? This _is_ checks and balances. The Executive branch (G. W.) believes that the Judicial is wrong in persuing Microsoft, so it is checking the Judicial branch's power.
CNN is building a spaceport?!
In order to bring back the goat, wouldn't they need to clone two goats, a male and a female?
If Newton was to do a calculation of the amount of energy in 1 kg, he would use m*g*h.
If Einstein did the calculation he would use m*c*c. What a difference.
agreed
From 1874:
"When I began my physical studies [in Munich in 1874] and sought advice
from my venerable teacher Philipp von Jolly... he portrayed to me physics
as a highly developed, almost fully matured science... Possibly in one or
another nook there would perhaps be a dust particle or a small bubble to
be examined and classified, but the system as a whole stood there fairly
secured, and theoretical physics approached visibly that degree of
perfection which, for example, geometry has had already for centuries."
- from a 1924 lecture by Max Planck (Sci. Am, Feb 1996 p.10)
From 1888:
"We are probably nearing the limit of all we can know about astronomy."
- Simon Newcomb, astronomer
From 1894:
"The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have
all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the
possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new
discoveries is exceedingly remote.... Our future discoveries must be
looked for in the sixth place of decimals." Albert. A. Michelson,
speech at the dedication of Ryerson Physics Lab, U. of Chicago 1894
(Especially interesting since Einstein used Michelson's experiments with light
as the basis for special relativity.)
From 1900:
"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains
is more and more precise measurement" - Lord Kelvin
From a bit earlier:
"So many centuries after the Creation, it is unlikely that anyone could
find hitherto unknown lands of any value."
- Spanish Royal Commission, rejecting Christopher Columbus' proposal
to sail west.
what's your point?
who decides if it is murder or self-defense?
who decides if it is stealing or borrowing?
who decides whether cigarette ads are deception or just ordinary propaganda?
who decides if microsoft is abusing it's power as a monopoly or just trying to stay competitive in the marketplace?
there are decisions like this being made in the courts all the time. in every one of its cases the supreme court decides if a particular act qualifies as a freedom or if it should be punished as a felony.
I think Cheech and Chong made one of these also.
o _2 /cheechchong_upinsmoke.html
http://www.dvdfile.com/software/review/dvd-vide
If someone hacks your system, doesn't seem to break anything, and simply sends you an anonymous message saying so, you REALLY don't know what went on.
If you claim that the company doesn't know what went on, then it is implied that there isn't any evidence that the hacker did something "bad." What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
Any qualified canidate would have ripped Bush *or* Gore to bits (provided they had the support of a major party.) What a shame.