What the heck did he do that's so wrong? Has everyone forgotten how many of these mergers started and/or finished under Clinton? The Clinton administration's degree of intervention was so feeble that it was symbolic at best. The only thing that happened was the judge ruling for a MS breakup...but that's now off the table. However...have you SEEN the list of things that the Goverments IS making MS do? If you really think about some of the things on that list...a breakup would have almost been preferable. Seriously...go read it.
It's not the claim that money and politics have a definite relationship that I am questioning. It's the claim that Bush had a direct hand in this that I question. Go ahead and substantiate it...I dare ya.
Exactly where did you hear that Bush had ANYTHING to do with this one? Shit like this happened under the previous administration as well...and odds are it'll happen under the futures ones. Grow up and quit randomly pointing a finger at someone you don't like without ANY substance to back it up.
Hey...if you don't like it, reply to it with substance rather than insults (or at least have the decency to use substance AND insults). If you don't have any substance, then I am questioning which one of us wants the "moron" option more.
Oh please...innocent until proven guilty indeed. Your being as "just" about things in general as the one you are accusing. At least have the decency to try to back up your claim, or get some medication for your conspiracy theory delusions.
If you want to drag the name through the mud, then you better bring something more substancial than your opinion...because your opinion isn't impressing me any more than Michael's.
And yes...he is the president...which is slightly different from being a candidate.
that is took this long to get something like this working. LED flashlights have been around awhile...using clusters of super bright white LED's...the light usually has a minorly blue hue to it, but it's the damn coolest thing to see. I have a headlamp that I use for camping made with 3 of those LEDs in it (you can find stronger ones with more) and you can get about 40 hours of life from the thing on a pair of AA batteries...pretty sweet. (Lithium batteries give 100+!)
The other cool thing about LED's is that if you run more of them at lower power levels, you actually get a more efficient light array out of it. Running them at half their rated power gives more than half the light of the max rated power. You can do some really efficient lighting if you really capitolize on that...and it even scales like that further down the power scale...Plus the buggers won't burn out for quite a few years.
You mean like these? http://www.fremlinsforgery.com/damascus.html
There's tons of places out there selling something they are at least CALLING damascus (dunno all the details)...which is really cool looking btw. It's been around for ages...custom knife makers/sword makers etc. use it for ornamental work. Seriously...search google...there's tons of it.
Well...you actually do make a pretty good point. I do think that there are some serious variations in critisism though, depending on the solution that is made. I do think he came up with a pretty reasonable solution here, and no...it's not going to please everyone...but I do think it will at least satisfy alot of people, even if it's not the 100% solution they wanted. I can critisize anything that's imperfect (pretty much everything in the world), but that doesn't mean I don't generally LIKE some of what's out there. In the end, I guess only time will tell...but I do see your point.
Well...I made my interpretation when you said Theologian...you said cleric after that. A theologian != cleric. A theologian literally by the dictionary definition is "A person well versed in theology; a professor of theology or divinity; a divine." A person who studies religeon does not make them a cleric. Heck...you can be well versed in it and be an Athiest. I don't see the problem with it. And it's T-H-E-O-L-O-G-I-A-N...not a cleric in the "employ" of a religeous organization. You said Bush used the word Theologian...your the one who's getting "C-L-E-R-I-C" out of there somewhere, unless he DID say Cleric...which I did not see you state.
A religeous man can still be a scientist quite easily really. It depends on HIS views...which may or may not be the same as the higher ups of the faith he practices (although those are the ones you are choosing to be the end all representation of a given religeon). There are ALOT of scientists with non-athiest beliefs out there. This isn't that simple...don't try to make it so...it's not a good generalization.
Whether or not you believe the pope means anything isn't important. The Pope might not even have any personal meaning to Bush....the thing is, is that there are still millions of Catholics who he does mean something to...and they have pretty clear feelings about this. It's a significant enough number to be seriously considered anyways, as his decision isn't just a personal thing...it's for the people of his Country. I think he actually did pretty good on this one.
It's interesting how the two responses to this so far have been modded down. I do agree with some of what they said though. It's a working vacation, as is common with presidents, and it's not like he's getting head in the oval office while he's there. Not intended as a cheap shot...but it's kinda true.
Eh...mod me down too then. But this post is no more offtopic than it's parent, and two other posts like this have gotten modded as offtopic thus far. Seems odd.
Hehe...well...if your gonna go be the brave guerrilla warfare guy, then at least do your homework on the subject. No thoughtful person takes known and researchable advise and says "whatever"...at least if they had any intention of putting their life on the line with it, which brings me to the conclusion that your talking out your ass in the grand slashdotter tradition. I never said you had to stand up to get mowed down like the revolutionary war british soldiers...however, at least the British had the decency to stand up and say "Hey...we're the British and we're declaring war on you for this", in some form. For all they know, it'll look like a power surge or lightening strike, so they'll just put up improved ones later.
A real EMP would kill your truck...your little gun probably won't. That's probably true enough. Killing a calculator isn't exactly tough however. The thing isn't even in a metal enclosure, let alone grounded.
Look...whatever kiddo. I've known people who've done things not so different from this actually. There was an engineer in a microwave lab who had an emitter in his car that could completely overload a radar gun. (literally to the point of smoking) However...let me give you a hint about this...he doesn't have it anymore...but I guess it was fun while it lasted. *cough*
Even beyond that...a camera wouldn't be difficult to harden to the effects of such a thing. Go ahead...invent a better mouse, and they'll invent a better trap. My point is this: You make a nuissance of yourself without addressing the actual problem in any way. Nuissances generally will eventually get dealt with. If your a big enough nuissance to honestly have any effect...you can pretty much count on that.
Look...it's kinda obvious your mind is made up, so go do it. The only ways to truely address this kind of problem though, are not found in the helm of an old pickup truck.
Rofl...Willing to stand up and fight for freedom, and post from the Anonymous Coward account. Thats the way to stand and deliver. Scarey indeed...yeah...I'll start running in a minute here.
With that being said...go read a survivalism newsgroup...search for EMP and diesel engines. I am not going to do your research for you on your vehicle...but there are some rules of thumb. The coil in a traditional system might be vulnerable to EMP, as would a voltage regulator, and various diodes. (Yes...there might be diodes in the alternator, etc.) Basically EMP is really bad news on any low voltage/high amperage system. If there are any transistors on that thing anywhere, kiss them goodbye. Odds are every gauge and sensor in that engine is NOT completely mechanical. No computer does NOT mean no required and sensitive electrical components. A purely mechanical diesel needs pretty much NONE of that stuff. Those are the engines that survivalists who are worried about an EMP have...and they have some good reasons. But even with all of that being said, I doubt you'll generate enough of an EMP to do terribly much (including mess up your truck that easily)...and if you manage to damage a few cameras, you can make a pretty safe bet that you'll either get brought down in a very bad way, and/or the new cameras will be hardened to it. But anyways...go ahead...be a hero. What your talking about is the idiots way to "fight" for freedom. Go ahead though....you'd make a great darwin award.
First off....you'd need more than just non computerized. You'd want mechanical EVERYTHING...and make it a warmed up diesel so those plugs don't have to fire. Don't be an idiot.
Second of all...being that your an idiot who would put an imaginary EMP in an old pickup that would get dropped by it anyways, frankly...it makes me want the cameras. You worry me.
Holy crap! Do your homework! People drop the same engines into Fiero's as they have in covettes. A chevy/pontiac 350 cubic inch V8 can be fit. It's tight...yes...but from what I understand, you don't even have to cut metal or anything to do it. If you have the Getrag (sp?) 5 speed transmission, they can even take the extra grunt of a bigger engine.
I don't buy the "Threatened the Corvette" line either...but you can make a serious bullet out of a Fiero...you can take on some pretty serious stuff with one. Do a search on Google if you don't believe me.
You'd be amazed at how little the weight difference is between the V8's and those inline 4's btw. Not NEARLY as much as people seem to think.
The Bush administration is following the law, pretty much like they promised. It's not the Bush administration that this turd of a law ever passed. I don't want to start a left wing/right wing debate here, but you can thank the Clinton Administration for this blessing.
As for their thoughts about the law, I honestly don't know. I do know there are some higher ups in the republican party who are definitely NOT liking how the DCMA is being used, however, such as Sen. Orrin Hatch. I am hoping their sentiments can reach the Whitehouse...It's hard to believe that thing ever became a law.
At those speeds, the only hill that would give you enough acceleration to overcome the wind resistance you'd be trying to over come, would start with a 90 degree angle. That's almost not untrue...check a physics book. Really, when you get down to it the only thing limiting the speed of the car at all (besides internal friction and resistances of the mechanical components) is wind resistance...and it takes ALOT of power to overcome increasing resistances with increasing speeds.
If you've ever driven a car anywhere NEAR 180 MPH, you'd know damn well just how much CAN go wrong...even on open clear highway. Any car that's not built for that kinda thing is going to have ALOT of problems in that speed range...
Socialism, capitalism and trading are very different things as you well know. Capitalism, as your article described it, is based on competition...I like competition. In my eyes, alot of the people who don't like competition are the ones who do not compete well. I do NOT want a big government driving me through life with the training wheels on.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm...ok...and what exactly are you basing this elaborate opinion on?
That line would make a neat troll though.
What the heck did he do that's so wrong? Has everyone forgotten how many of these mergers started and/or finished under Clinton? The Clinton administration's degree of intervention was so feeble that it was symbolic at best. The only thing that happened was the judge ruling for a MS breakup...but that's now off the table. However...have you SEEN the list of things that the Goverments IS making MS do? If you really think about some of the things on that list...a breakup would have almost been preferable. Seriously...go read it.
It's not the claim that money and politics have a definite relationship that I am questioning. It's the claim that Bush had a direct hand in this that I question. Go ahead and substantiate it...I dare ya.
Exactly where did you hear that Bush had ANYTHING to do with this one? Shit like this happened under the previous administration as well...and odds are it'll happen under the futures ones. Grow up and quit randomly pointing a finger at someone you don't like without ANY substance to back it up.
Hey...if you don't like it, reply to it with substance rather than insults (or at least have the decency to use substance AND insults). If you don't have any substance, then I am questioning which one of us wants the "moron" option more.
Oh please...innocent until proven guilty indeed. Your being as "just" about things in general as the one you are accusing. At least have the decency to try to back up your claim, or get some medication for your conspiracy theory delusions.
If you want to drag the name through the mud, then you better bring something more substancial than your opinion...because your opinion isn't impressing me any more than Michael's.
And yes...he is the president...which is slightly different from being a candidate.
that is took this long to get something like this working. LED flashlights have been around awhile...using clusters of super bright white LED's...the light usually has a minorly blue hue to it, but it's the damn coolest thing to see. I have a headlamp that I use for camping made with 3 of those LEDs in it (you can find stronger ones with more) and you can get about 40 hours of life from the thing on a pair of AA batteries...pretty sweet. (Lithium batteries give 100+!)
The other cool thing about LED's is that if you run more of them at lower power levels, you actually get a more efficient light array out of it. Running them at half their rated power gives more than half the light of the max rated power. You can do some really efficient lighting if you really capitolize on that...and it even scales like that further down the power scale...Plus the buggers won't burn out for quite a few years.
From what the article said and what I could find, it's not the same kinda stuff....although it has a very cool look to it.
You mean like these? http://www.fremlinsforgery.com/damascus.html
There's tons of places out there selling something they are at least CALLING damascus (dunno all the details)...which is really cool looking btw. It's been around for ages...custom knife makers/sword makers etc. use it for ornamental work. Seriously...search google...there's tons of it.
Definitely no harm done. Sorry if I acted like a definition nazi. :)
Well...you actually do make a pretty good point. I do think that there are some serious variations in critisism though, depending on the solution that is made. I do think he came up with a pretty reasonable solution here, and no...it's not going to please everyone...but I do think it will at least satisfy alot of people, even if it's not the 100% solution they wanted. I can critisize anything that's imperfect (pretty much everything in the world), but that doesn't mean I don't generally LIKE some of what's out there. In the end, I guess only time will tell...but I do see your point.
Well...I made my interpretation when you said Theologian...you said cleric after that. A theologian != cleric. A theologian literally by the dictionary definition is "A person well versed in theology; a professor of theology or divinity; a divine." A person who studies religeon does not make them a cleric. Heck...you can be well versed in it and be an Athiest. I don't see the problem with it. And it's T-H-E-O-L-O-G-I-A-N...not a cleric in the "employ" of a religeous organization. You said Bush used the word Theologian...your the one who's getting "C-L-E-R-I-C" out of there somewhere, unless he DID say Cleric...which I did not see you state.
A religeous man can still be a scientist quite easily really. It depends on HIS views...which may or may not be the same as the higher ups of the faith he practices (although those are the ones you are choosing to be the end all representation of a given religeon). There are ALOT of scientists with non-athiest beliefs out there. This isn't that simple...don't try to make it so...it's not a good generalization.
Hmm...I dunno....but when you get down to it...isn't making a good decision the best way to hedge against critisism?
Whether or not you believe the pope means anything isn't important. The Pope might not even have any personal meaning to Bush....the thing is, is that there are still millions of Catholics who he does mean something to...and they have pretty clear feelings about this. It's a significant enough number to be seriously considered anyways, as his decision isn't just a personal thing...it's for the people of his Country. I think he actually did pretty good on this one.
It's interesting how the two responses to this so far have been modded down. I do agree with some of what they said though. It's a working vacation, as is common with presidents, and it's not like he's getting head in the oval office while he's there. Not intended as a cheap shot...but it's kinda true.
Eh...mod me down too then. But this post is no more offtopic than it's parent, and two other posts like this have gotten modded as offtopic thus far. Seems odd.
Hehe...well...if your gonna go be the brave guerrilla warfare guy, then at least do your homework on the subject. No thoughtful person takes known and researchable advise and says "whatever"...at least if they had any intention of putting their life on the line with it, which brings me to the conclusion that your talking out your ass in the grand slashdotter tradition. I never said you had to stand up to get mowed down like the revolutionary war british soldiers...however, at least the British had the decency to stand up and say "Hey...we're the British and we're declaring war on you for this", in some form. For all they know, it'll look like a power surge or lightening strike, so they'll just put up improved ones later.
A real EMP would kill your truck...your little gun probably won't. That's probably true enough. Killing a calculator isn't exactly tough however. The thing isn't even in a metal enclosure, let alone grounded.
Look...whatever kiddo. I've known people who've done things not so different from this actually. There was an engineer in a microwave lab who had an emitter in his car that could completely overload a radar gun. (literally to the point of smoking) However...let me give you a hint about this...he doesn't have it anymore...but I guess it was fun while it lasted. *cough*
Even beyond that...a camera wouldn't be difficult to harden to the effects of such a thing. Go ahead...invent a better mouse, and they'll invent a better trap. My point is this: You make a nuissance of yourself without addressing the actual problem in any way. Nuissances generally will eventually get dealt with. If your a big enough nuissance to honestly have any effect...you can pretty much count on that.
Look...it's kinda obvious your mind is made up, so go do it. The only ways to truely address this kind of problem though, are not found in the helm of an old pickup truck.
Rofl...Willing to stand up and fight for freedom, and post from the Anonymous Coward account. Thats the way to stand and deliver. Scarey indeed...yeah...I'll start running in a minute here.
With that being said...go read a survivalism newsgroup...search for EMP and diesel engines. I am not going to do your research for you on your vehicle...but there are some rules of thumb. The coil in a traditional system might be vulnerable to EMP, as would a voltage regulator, and various diodes. (Yes...there might be diodes in the alternator, etc.) Basically EMP is really bad news on any low voltage/high amperage system. If there are any transistors on that thing anywhere, kiss them goodbye. Odds are every gauge and sensor in that engine is NOT completely mechanical. No computer does NOT mean no required and sensitive electrical components. A purely mechanical diesel needs pretty much NONE of that stuff. Those are the engines that survivalists who are worried about an EMP have...and they have some good reasons. But even with all of that being said, I doubt you'll generate enough of an EMP to do terribly much (including mess up your truck that easily)...and if you manage to damage a few cameras, you can make a pretty safe bet that you'll either get brought down in a very bad way, and/or the new cameras will be hardened to it. But anyways...go ahead...be a hero. What your talking about is the idiots way to "fight" for freedom. Go ahead though....you'd make a great darwin award.
First off....you'd need more than just non computerized. You'd want mechanical EVERYTHING...and make it a warmed up diesel so those plugs don't have to fire. Don't be an idiot.
Second of all...being that your an idiot who would put an imaginary EMP in an old pickup that would get dropped by it anyways, frankly...it makes me want the cameras. You worry me.
Holy crap! Do your homework! People drop the same engines into Fiero's as they have in covettes. A chevy/pontiac 350 cubic inch V8 can be fit. It's tight...yes...but from what I understand, you don't even have to cut metal or anything to do it. If you have the Getrag (sp?) 5 speed transmission, they can even take the extra grunt of a bigger engine.
I don't buy the "Threatened the Corvette" line either...but you can make a serious bullet out of a Fiero...you can take on some pretty serious stuff with one. Do a search on Google if you don't believe me.
You'd be amazed at how little the weight difference is between the V8's and those inline 4's btw. Not NEARLY as much as people seem to think.
The Bush administration is following the law, pretty much like they promised. It's not the Bush administration that this turd of a law ever passed. I don't want to start a left wing/right wing debate here, but you can thank the Clinton Administration for this blessing.
As for their thoughts about the law, I honestly don't know. I do know there are some higher ups in the republican party who are definitely NOT liking how the DCMA is being used, however, such as Sen. Orrin Hatch. I am hoping their sentiments can reach the Whitehouse...It's hard to believe that thing ever became a law.
At those speeds, the only hill that would give you enough acceleration to overcome the wind resistance you'd be trying to over come, would start with a 90 degree angle. That's almost not untrue...check a physics book. Really, when you get down to it the only thing limiting the speed of the car at all (besides internal friction and resistances of the mechanical components) is wind resistance...and it takes ALOT of power to overcome increasing resistances with increasing speeds.
Seriously...that's a really weak idea.
And for that matter...even the appropropriate vehicles are VERY touchy at those speeds. Hope you don't hit a pothole.
If you've ever driven a car anywhere NEAR 180 MPH, you'd know damn well just how much CAN go wrong...even on open clear highway. Any car that's not built for that kinda thing is going to have ALOT of problems in that speed range...
Socialism, capitalism and trading are very different things as you well know. Capitalism, as your article described it, is based on competition...I like competition. In my eyes, alot of the people who don't like competition are the ones who do not compete well. I do NOT want a big government driving me through life with the training wheels on.
See Natural Selection
It also amuses me to think of how many of the wealthy people living in these socialist countries made their fortunes doing business with this one.
It sounds very cold, but in my mind, the sucessful should be allowed to be themselves too.