Doesn't matter if it's the best idea humanity ever came up with, it won't go anywhere in its current form.
Now, were it to be renamed the Anti-Terrorism Immigration Marriage For the Children to Protect America Act, we might actually be able to move the ball forward...
I truly do not understand the US aversion for identity papers.
Well, basically it boils down to legal requirements for government accessibility - not everyone can get to the ID shop (a 90-year-old quadriplegic living below the poverty line doesn't really have the means to get an ID, and thus, to access their right to vote), and a lot of people bitch about the "cost to taxpayers" when you explain that charging people for access to government via legally required ID would be unconstitutional.
Of course, there's also the ever-present rationale (if it can be called that) exhibited by egomanical morons, that their opinions are the only ones that matter.
And at the same time I don't understand why most USamericans don't give a flying squirrel about the wholesale spying going on. They don't want a piece of paper to identify them once a year when a cop or a govnmt employee asks for it for a legitimate purpose, but they don't care to have their every word archived to some big brother 5 zetabytes database with sorry consequences years from now. Beats me.
I blame it on a combination of the steadily declining quality of public education, mass media's extremely successful brainwashing programs, and the Democrat/Republican duopoly that ensures the aforementioned fucktards are the only ones whose voices get heard.
FWIW the police in Berkeley have long had a reputation for being strict and unkind. They are virtually the figurative personification of the man. So she'll fit in that niche.
Plus, being California, the vast majority of people who have the balls and/or means to fight against such authoritarian bullshit are already in prison.
Should make completing the fascist takeover a fairly straightforward manner.
Personally, I'm a bit surprised she (are we sure of that?) didn't brag about how, under her(?) leadership, the DHS acquired enough guns, tanks, and ammo to wage war on the American people for a solid decade.
This pretty much proves that a human athlete has enough power to provide enough thrust/downforce for lift. So my question is, would it be feasible to generate this same level of thrust in a smaller area using the same amount of power?
Gear reduction, perhaps?
No, unless I'm mistaken, you can't use gears to change power, only to alter speed and torque. There are some (mostly negligable) losses in gears, but anything else would imply that gears can generate power, then you'd have a perpetual momentum device.
I was assuming GP was using the term "power" as a substitute for "work." Since his question is whether or not it would be possible to generate the same amount of thrust across a smaller airframe, while still doing the same amount of work, I presume that gear reduction could be a valid method of achieving that goal, because you would be able to increase the speed of the prop (and thus, generate more lift) without the power source (the cyclist) having to expend any more energy than before.
'Course, IANA Mechanical Engineer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...
You know, I was about to agree with your first 2 paragraphs. Then I saw your third; What are you, 10 years old? Can't have a disagreement with another person without going off the fucking deep end and making personal attacks? That's pathetic, dude.
Go fuck yourself, bigot. I will be ignoring you from this point forward, as anyone half-assed reasonable should.
This pretty much proves that a human athlete has enough power to provide enough thrust/downforce for lift. So my question is, would it be feasible to generate this same level of thrust in a smaller area using the same amount of power?
1. When having access to produce and livestock became a 'right'
2. Why people have to have foodstuffs that requires 90% or more of the country to pay for it because of where they choose to live
3. Why I should pay more because someone wants to live in an urban center where they can't make any food for themselves and don't have land for livestock.
4. Why they can't move
She's a double edged sword, pavement-dweller.
5. Why, after all of the above, if they don't have skills, can't live off the land, can't get a job, can't move, and are poor, we don't relocate them someplace else since they must already be living on the government dole. When you don't make your own way and don't contribute to society, you don't get to decide the rules that govern how you receive free money and other things.
You are correct, but in an age where copying is trivial, we HAVE to find new ways to fund these things.
Do we really, though? Humanity got by just fine without movies for a couple hundred thousand years without them. Saying that we have to fund them seems a bit... hyperbolic.
Full Disclosure, I watch maybe, maybe 2 new movies every 5 years or so; thus the bias.
Further, the arts currently are encumbered by vast costs that dont take the current reality to heart.
Depends on how you define "the arts." Canvas and oil paints are pretty cheap, especially compared to 3d filmography rigs, CGI server farms, etc.
The ability to make one piece of art and expect to be able to sell it to 7 billion people needs to end now.
That's far less concerning than the trend of charging those 7 billion people a fee for every single time they look at said "art."
Whatever happened to owning shit? Yea, yea, I know, a DVD != the art itself, but I think all but the most obtuse people know what I mean.
as long as its theirs to do with as they please, there is no wrong committed, even if they sink it to the bottom of the ocean and never even show it to the public, let alone refuse to make localized copies.
The consequences can range from all sorts of things, but I find the most appropriate consequences isn't to steal your shit, but instead to illegally copy it (Which isn't stealing at all, but seems to aggravate the fuck out of you--which is exactly what I want to do..
Hate to break this to ya, but you're playing right into their hands - think about how the MPAA/RIAA spin piracy.
"Well, obviously this piece of IP is at least worth what we charge, otherwise all these people wouldn't be stealing it!
I would say your best bet is to just boycott their products, but fuck if they don't have a way to spin that to their advantage as well (every lost sale, regardless of reason, == OMFGPIRATES!)
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. It really amazes me that Obama set up the law so that he had to fight with states to set up health care exchanges.
Ah, well, simple answer there - he didn't
Wait until you find out it only works with Internet Explorer.
IE6. With NoScript disabled, and some proprietary ActiveX component that NEVER FUCKING DOWNLOADS RIGHT.
it's not too late, we could still pass HR 676, Medicare for All.
Doesn't matter if it's the best idea humanity ever came up with, it won't go anywhere in its current form.
Now, were it to be renamed the Anti-Terrorism Immigration Marriage For the Children to Protect America Act, we might actually be able to move the ball forward...
On topic: The path of least regret would have been single payer system, but we somehow ended up with a Republican profit-utopia called "Obamacare".
Yea, almost as if Republicans weren't the only ones who wanted it...
Partisanship: because independent thought is hard!
I truly do not understand the US aversion for identity papers.
Well, basically it boils down to legal requirements for government accessibility - not everyone can get to the ID shop (a 90-year-old quadriplegic living below the poverty line doesn't really have the means to get an ID, and thus, to access their right to vote), and a lot of people bitch about the "cost to taxpayers" when you explain that charging people for access to government via legally required ID would be unconstitutional.
Of course, there's also the ever-present rationale (if it can be called that) exhibited by egomanical morons, that their opinions are the only ones that matter.
And at the same time I don't understand why most USamericans don't give a flying squirrel about the wholesale spying going on. They don't want a piece of paper to identify them once a year when a cop or a govnmt employee asks for it for a legitimate purpose, but they don't care to have their every word archived to some big brother 5 zetabytes database with sorry consequences years from now. Beats me.
I blame it on a combination of the steadily declining quality of public education, mass media's extremely successful brainwashing programs, and the Democrat/Republican duopoly that ensures the aforementioned fucktards are the only ones whose voices get heard.
Venereal disease.
FWIW the police in Berkeley have long had a reputation for being strict and unkind. They are virtually the figurative personification of the man. So she'll fit in that niche.
Plus, being California, the vast majority of people who have the balls and/or means to fight against such authoritarian bullshit are already in prison.
Should make completing the fascist takeover a fairly straightforward manner.
Far less terrifying than the diseases they brewed up during the cold war.
... like HIV...
Personally, I'm a bit surprised she (are we sure of that?) didn't brag about how, under her(?) leadership, the DHS acquired enough guns, tanks, and ammo to wage war on the American people for a solid decade.
Congrats guys.
This pretty much proves that a human athlete has enough power to provide enough thrust/downforce for lift. So my question is, would it be feasible to generate this same level of thrust in a smaller area using the same amount of power?
Gear reduction, perhaps?
No, unless I'm mistaken, you can't use gears to change power, only to alter speed and torque. There are some (mostly negligable) losses in gears, but anything else would imply that gears can generate power, then you'd have a perpetual momentum device.
I was assuming GP was using the term "power" as a substitute for "work." Since his question is whether or not it would be possible to generate the same amount of thrust across a smaller airframe, while still doing the same amount of work, I presume that gear reduction could be a valid method of achieving that goal, because you would be able to increase the speed of the prop (and thus, generate more lift) without the power source (the cyclist) having to expend any more energy than before.
'Course, IANA Mechanical Engineer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...
You know, I was about to agree with your first 2 paragraphs. Then I saw your third; What are you, 10 years old? Can't have a disagreement with another person without going off the fucking deep end and making personal attacks? That's pathetic, dude.
Go fuck yourself, bigot. I will be ignoring you from this point forward, as anyone half-assed reasonable should.
See what I did there?
I do, and I approve.
Well played, sir/madam, well played.
Many and varied. After all, in our own solar system, Earth, Uranus, and Neptune are all shades of blue.
If Uranus is blue, you should really go see a proctologist.
Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week! Tip your wait staff!
Is this real info or is it disinformation?
My guess is, less than 25% of the terms are real, the rest are well-poison.
BANYAN???
Isn't that the almost extinct government and defence email system, Banyan Vines??
I was thinking of that hack comedian from the Seinfeld show; you know, the "That's gold, Jerry! GOLD!" guy?
Then I googled it, and found out the character's name is actually Kenny Bania, not Banyan.
Sad now :(
Congrats guys.
This pretty much proves that a human athlete has enough power to provide enough thrust/downforce for lift. So my question is, would it be feasible to generate this same level of thrust in a smaller area using the same amount of power?
Gear reduction, perhaps?
1. When having access to produce and livestock became a 'right'
2. Why people have to have foodstuffs that requires 90% or more of the country to pay for it because of where they choose to live
3. Why I should pay more because someone wants to live in an urban center where they can't make any food for themselves and don't have land for livestock.
4. Why they can't move
She's a double edged sword, pavement-dweller.
5. Why, after all of the above, if they don't have skills, can't live off the land, can't get a job, can't move, and are poor, we don't relocate them someplace else since they must already be living on the government dole. When you don't make your own way and don't contribute to society, you don't get to decide the rules that govern how you receive free money and other things.
That one is easy to answer:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
I guess qualified people are figuring out that it's better doing something that's more ethical, like running three card monte games.
... or pimping/hooking, selling black market organ, dealing heroin to children...
You are correct, but in an age where copying is trivial, we HAVE to find new ways to fund these things.
Do we really, though? Humanity got by just fine without movies for a couple hundred thousand years without them. Saying that we have to fund them seems a bit... hyperbolic.
Full Disclosure, I watch maybe, maybe 2 new movies every 5 years or so; thus the bias.
Further, the arts currently are encumbered by vast costs that dont take the current reality to heart.
Depends on how you define "the arts." Canvas and oil paints are pretty cheap, especially compared to 3d filmography rigs, CGI server farms, etc.
The ability to make one piece of art and expect to be able to sell it to 7 billion people needs to end now.
That's far less concerning than the trend of charging those 7 billion people a fee for every single time they look at said "art."
Whatever happened to owning shit? Yea, yea, I know, a DVD != the art itself, but I think all but the most obtuse people know what I mean.
as long as its theirs to do with as they please, there is no wrong committed, even if they sink it to the bottom of the ocean and never even show it to the public, let alone refuse to make localized copies.
Aye, we could only be so lucky...
We pay $50+ here in America for concerts because of music pirating.
WTF?
No, dude, you pay $150+ for concerts because recording labels and certain 'artists' are greedy, avaricious fuckheads.
[insert gag about Kid Rock being able to charge $20 for tickets because nobody listens to his shitty music anyway, let alone pirating it]
The consequences can range from all sorts of things, but I find the most appropriate consequences isn't to steal your shit, but instead to illegally copy it (Which isn't stealing at all, but seems to aggravate the fuck out of you--which is exactly what I want to do..
Hate to break this to ya, but you're playing right into their hands - think about how the MPAA/RIAA spin piracy.
"Well, obviously this piece of IP is at least worth what we charge, otherwise all these people wouldn't be stealing it!
I would say your best bet is to just boycott their products, but fuck if they don't have a way to spin that to their advantage as well (every lost sale, regardless of reason, == OMFGPIRATES!)
Non sequitur - nowhere in TFS or TFA is it stated that the fan-subs were made for illegally pirated movies.
Under current law, a translation of an audiovisual work's original script into another language is a derivative work.
Surely I can't be the only one who finds such a law to fall under the category of "royally fucked?"
Other than being an aspect of the profit-protection racket, what possible, legitimate reason would there be for that kind of legislation?
Copy a book easily?
It's been, what, 600-some-odd years since Gutenberg?
Yea, I'd say we've probably figured out a way to 'easily' copy books since then, relatively speaking.