What carrier are you using? I don't think I've seen a plan with texts that cheap before. Mine is 5 cent minute/8 cent text/no data from www.pagepluscellular.com, which met my criteria as the cheapest CDMA/Verizon prepaid carrier in the US at the time.
and women should "get over it and wait for the ring to diversify his wardrobe."
Like that's ever worked for anyone of either sex in a relationship - "Oh, they'll change when they're married." Not!
It worked for my mom, on the clothing front at least. My dad had terrible fashion sense before they got married, then she became his "wardrobe consultant" and threw out all the bow-ties and made sure all his shirts were clean and his suits matched, and he started getting a lot a more TV interviews. The tricky part was dealing with his habit of wearing whatever he picked up first, so now all he has are white shirts and dark suits so everything matches. She didn't change the habit, just the environment, and achieved the same result. Of course, this was a simplifying, not diversifying, which would have been a big mistake.
Imitation may be the highest form of flattery, but accusation is the highest form of hypocrisy. The greatest hypocrites always accuse others of what they themselves are guilty of.
I assumed it based on everyone's talk about how the executive was explicitly not pursuing it as a "treaty" per se, so as to avoid oversight of some kind. Or is that just a/. conspiracy theory?
Last time I checked, international agreements on their own did not carry the force of law within a sovereign country. Unless a treaty is ratified or subsequent law is passed by the legislature, I don't see how a government could prosecute anyone unless they already have the power discussed in the agreement. Look at the E.U.--when they decide on a policy, their member nations each pass laws that comply with the EU policy, but aren't necessarily dictated by the EU itself. If they don't, there may be consequences, but folks are usually loathe to exercise sanctions on their trading partners. If ACTA is attempting to alter the legal structure of the U.S. without going through Congress, I would like to see that stand up in court.
IANAL, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I may have missed this bit in the whole ACTA debate, but it seems relevant to me.
If you've ever got a DNAS Error -103 on a game for a PlayStation family console, you'll understand this.
Well yes, I can see how that could become a problem. What it means in reality, though, is that DRMed games, and non-transferable licenses in general, have less intrinsic value than their open counterparts. If the market can force prices down enough, then it won't matter that they are DRM-encrusted, you can just buy another one later. If not, then I smell an industry contraction. They can only survive by extorting paying customers for so long (though we have no idea how long).
What you need to do is immerse the main part of the electronics in a large vat of parafin and liquid nitrogen that will boil off rapidly but last long enough for the sensor to send back some data.
If companies are fine with selling only to the segment of the population that's both willing and able to upgrade in order to play new stuff, then that's their call.
Case in point: Nintendo stopped making new N64 games soon after the GameCube came out and stopped making new GameCube games soon after the Wii came out.
And at the time, I bought a used N64, with used games, and was quite happy with it for many years. Then I bought a used GameCube with more used games, and found some of the N64 ones were better. It doesn't have to be new to be fun.
For all the antipathy toward the movie and recording industries, it is amazing how many people are still obsessed with consuming their output.
In the case of the record industry, I can't avoid consuming its output. Grocery stores play it in the background.
I feel your pain, man. Let's get a group discount on those earplugs!
Come on, man, cut them a little slack. You can't expect them to ignore the issue completely, can you? They have to at least promise to ignore it. After all, it was politicians who wrote and signed the Constitution that says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press", and we know what would have happened if they hadn't.
Once there ceases to be any tangible benefit for the consumer in an upgrade (no, I don't need 2160p, or 32-channel surround sound, or 4-D goggles LOL) then people will more strongly resist the upgrade cycle.
How about continued availability of newly published works? Or where can I buy a lawfully made copy of Avatar on VHS?
If companies are fine with selling only to the segment of the population that's both willing and able to upgrade in order to play new stuff, then that's their call. I can't force them to sell in my price range (including playback system cost). For the rest of us, we may be relegated to theater viewing, online streaming, pirating, etc. But again, that's their call.
For all the antipathy toward the movie and recording industries, it is amazing how many people are still obsessed with consuming their output. Quite frankly, there are so many great historical works (in the last fifty years) that are readily available in many formats, it is inevitable that new releases will become devalued a certain amount. Only truly original and socially relevant works will be successful recordings, no matter what format they are released in; the two-thousandth generic chick-flick is unlikely to sell anywhere but the wal-mart dollar bin. But companies do have the opportunity to choose between ubiquity and obscurity when choosing what format and what DRM to use.
Once there ceases to be any tangible benefit for the consumer in an upgrade (no, I don't need 2160p, or 32-channel surround sound, or 4-D goggles LOL) then people will more strongly resist the upgrade cycle. Ideally, the only people buying the new equipment would be hackers who will redistribute everything so the old machines can play it.
"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know." --Donald Rumsfeld
I doubt it will get that far. Normal tech savvy people will be able to play their legal (in addition to illegal) content however they want, but normal people will be just as boned.
So both sides are recruiting engineers to be terrorists. Why should building weapons to kill people ever be noble? Why should building weapons to kill them be more noble than building weapons to kill us? When we invade a country and drop bombs on peoples houses and kill civilians while trying to kill "enemies", how are we not exactly the same as the terrorists? That is why I don't work in the defense industry.
If you restrict "terrorists" to the category of "people who have successfully blown stuff up", then the headline is kind of like saying "why are professional drummers often good at banging things rhythmically together?"
There is also the Darwin effect going on here. There are lots of kinds of terrorists, but the engineers are the ones who are successful without getting themselves killed, either intentionally or not, and thus rise to the top of the heap in experience, power, and media coverage.
There have been news articles about terrorist organizations specifically recruiting engineers for their skills so they can build weapons. This is not some coincidence of psychology, it is a fact of necessity. If terrorists were selected randomly, or were a naturally occurring phenomenon, then yes, we would have lots of non-engineers trying to make bombs and messing up. But terrorists are made, not born, and they intentionally proselytize engineers because they don't want to waste time cleaning up after idiots.
Oh my, you are right. You never "coast" into a circular orbit from a "lower altitude at a higher velocity", you simply end up in an elliptical orbit. Which may or may not intersect the earth, as you so accurately put it.
I just hope this post gets modded up as much as my previous (incorrect) one.
As the GP said, gravity is a conservative force. It is ALWAYS in control. Right now, gravity from distance stars is pulling us in their direction--the force is infinitestimal but present nonetheless. It is an extreme colloquialism to say that when you throw a ball up in the air gravity "takes control" when it starts to fall down, never mind that gravity caused the slowing of its ascent as well. Same as in orbits.
"Coasting into orbit," in your colloquial usage, simply means cutting the engines at a lower altitude than the final orbital altitude. To pull it off, you have to be going faster than orbital velocity at the lower altitude so that after your engine is cut off, some of your kinetic energy is transferred to potential energy, and you slow down while still going up until you reach the final orbit. This is no doubt used for small portions of most flights. But the GP's point is correct; anyone who understands Newtonian physics will be able to tell whether and what orbit you will reach once you cut your engines, thus no one ever bothers to talk about "coasting".
The only difference with a railgun-only launch system is you reach the maximum velocity at ground level and spend the *entire* trip to orbit "coasting." This is not what NASA is proposing. They will use the railgun only as the first stage, followed by scramjets and an orbital-insertion rocket engine, which is a much more realistic proposal.
Slashdot Mirror
What carrier are you using? I don't think I've seen a plan with texts that cheap before. Mine is 5 cent minute/8 cent text/no data from www.pagepluscellular.com, which met my criteria as the cheapest CDMA/Verizon prepaid carrier in the US at the time.
Like that's ever worked for anyone of either sex in a relationship - "Oh, they'll change when they're married." Not!
It worked for my mom, on the clothing front at least. My dad had terrible fashion sense before they got married, then she became his "wardrobe consultant" and threw out all the bow-ties and made sure all his shirts were clean and his suits matched, and he started getting a lot a more TV interviews. The tricky part was dealing with his habit of wearing whatever he picked up first, so now all he has are white shirts and dark suits so everything matches. She didn't change the habit, just the environment, and achieved the same result. Of course, this was a simplifying, not diversifying, which would have been a big mistake.
Here's one start: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090806/1659115788.shtml. The article references other artists who have spoken out against the RIAA's anti-filesharing tactics.
Imitation may be the highest form of flattery, but accusation is the highest form of hypocrisy. The greatest hypocrites always accuse others of what they themselves are guilty of.
I assumed it based on everyone's talk about how the executive was explicitly not pursuing it as a "treaty" per se, so as to avoid oversight of some kind. Or is that just a /. conspiracy theory?
Last time I checked, international agreements on their own did not carry the force of law within a sovereign country. Unless a treaty is ratified or subsequent law is passed by the legislature, I don't see how a government could prosecute anyone unless they already have the power discussed in the agreement. Look at the E.U.--when they decide on a policy, their member nations each pass laws that comply with the EU policy, but aren't necessarily dictated by the EU itself. If they don't, there may be consequences, but folks are usually loathe to exercise sanctions on their trading partners. If ACTA is attempting to alter the legal structure of the U.S. without going through Congress, I would like to see that stand up in court.
IANAL, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I may have missed this bit in the whole ACTA debate, but it seems relevant to me.
used games
If you've ever got a DNAS Error -103 on a game for a PlayStation family console, you'll understand this.
Well yes, I can see how that could become a problem. What it means in reality, though, is that DRMed games, and non-transferable licenses in general, have less intrinsic value than their open counterparts. If the market can force prices down enough, then it won't matter that they are DRM-encrusted, you can just buy another one later. If not, then I smell an industry contraction. They can only survive by extorting paying customers for so long (though we have no idea how long).
What you need to do is immerse the main part of the electronics in a large vat of parafin and liquid nitrogen that will boil off rapidly but last long enough for the sensor to send back some data.
If companies are fine with selling only to the segment of the population that's both willing and able to upgrade in order to play new stuff, then that's their call.
Case in point: Nintendo stopped making new N64 games soon after the GameCube came out and stopped making new GameCube games soon after the Wii came out.
And at the time, I bought a used N64, with used games, and was quite happy with it for many years. Then I bought a used GameCube with more used games, and found some of the N64 ones were better. It doesn't have to be new to be fun.
For all the antipathy toward the movie and recording industries, it is amazing how many people are still obsessed with consuming their output.
In the case of the record industry, I can't avoid consuming its output. Grocery stores play it in the background.
I feel your pain, man. Let's get a group discount on those earplugs!
Come on, man, cut them a little slack. You can't expect them to ignore the issue completely, can you? They have to at least promise to ignore it. After all, it was politicians who wrote and signed the Constitution that says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press", and we know what would have happened if they hadn't.
Once there ceases to be any tangible benefit for the consumer in an upgrade (no, I don't need 2160p, or 32-channel surround sound, or 4-D goggles LOL) then people will more strongly resist the upgrade cycle.
How about continued availability of newly published works? Or where can I buy a lawfully made copy of Avatar on VHS?
If companies are fine with selling only to the segment of the population that's both willing and able to upgrade in order to play new stuff, then that's their call. I can't force them to sell in my price range (including playback system cost). For the rest of us, we may be relegated to theater viewing, online streaming, pirating, etc. But again, that's their call.
For all the antipathy toward the movie and recording industries, it is amazing how many people are still obsessed with consuming their output. Quite frankly, there are so many great historical works (in the last fifty years) that are readily available in many formats, it is inevitable that new releases will become devalued a certain amount. Only truly original and socially relevant works will be successful recordings, no matter what format they are released in; the two-thousandth generic chick-flick is unlikely to sell anywhere but the wal-mart dollar bin. But companies do have the opportunity to choose between ubiquity and obscurity when choosing what format and what DRM to use.
Once there ceases to be any tangible benefit for the consumer in an upgrade (no, I don't need 2160p, or 32-channel surround sound, or 4-D goggles LOL) then people will more strongly resist the upgrade cycle. Ideally, the only people buying the new equipment would be hackers who will redistribute everything so the old machines can play it.
I dare you to send a color fax.
"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know." --Donald Rumsfeld
Can I paraphrase your paraphrasing? Just to make sure it no longer makes any sense.
I don't live in a condom, either.
I doubt it will get that far. Normal tech savvy people will be able to play their legal (in addition to illegal) content however they want, but normal people will be just as boned.
So both sides are recruiting engineers to be terrorists. Why should building weapons to kill people ever be noble? Why should building weapons to kill them be more noble than building weapons to kill us? When we invade a country and drop bombs on peoples houses and kill civilians while trying to kill "enemies", how are we not exactly the same as the terrorists? That is why I don't work in the defense industry.
If you restrict "terrorists" to the category of "people who have successfully blown stuff up", then the headline is kind of like saying "why are professional drummers often good at banging things rhythmically together?"
There is also the Darwin effect going on here. There are lots of kinds of terrorists, but the engineers are the ones who are successful without getting themselves killed, either intentionally or not, and thus rise to the top of the heap in experience, power, and media coverage.
THIS!!
There have been news articles about terrorist organizations specifically recruiting engineers for their skills so they can build weapons. This is not some coincidence of psychology, it is a fact of necessity. If terrorists were selected randomly, or were a naturally occurring phenomenon, then yes, we would have lots of non-engineers trying to make bombs and messing up. But terrorists are made, not born, and they intentionally proselytize engineers because they don't want to waste time cleaning up after idiots.
Oh my, you are right. You never "coast" into a circular orbit from a "lower altitude at a higher velocity", you simply end up in an elliptical orbit. Which may or may not intersect the earth, as you so accurately put it.
I just hope this post gets modded up as much as my previous (incorrect) one.
So we have a 4000-mile long rubber band zinging above our heads at 18,000 mph? What happens when it snaps?
before gravity takes control.
As the GP said, gravity is a conservative force. It is ALWAYS in control. Right now, gravity from distance stars is pulling us in their direction--the force is infinitestimal but present nonetheless. It is an extreme colloquialism to say that when you throw a ball up in the air gravity "takes control" when it starts to fall down, never mind that gravity caused the slowing of its ascent as well. Same as in orbits.
"Coasting into orbit," in your colloquial usage, simply means cutting the engines at a lower altitude than the final orbital altitude. To pull it off, you have to be going faster than orbital velocity at the lower altitude so that after your engine is cut off, some of your kinetic energy is transferred to potential energy, and you slow down while still going up until you reach the final orbit. This is no doubt used for small portions of most flights. But the GP's point is correct; anyone who understands Newtonian physics will be able to tell whether and what orbit you will reach once you cut your engines, thus no one ever bothers to talk about "coasting".
The only difference with a railgun-only launch system is you reach the maximum velocity at ground level and spend the *entire* trip to orbit "coasting." This is not what NASA is proposing. They will use the railgun only as the first stage, followed by scramjets and an orbital-insertion rocket engine, which is a much more realistic proposal.
That would be a rather unfortunate pony, and a rather monochromatic rainbow. Do these things come with windshield wipers?
You mean us insiders can understand it? Could've fooled me there...