Arnold is a California Republican. He'd be a democrat in most of the rest of the states.
I oppose ammending the constitution to allow him to run. I especially dislike the one that simply makes it so that you have to have been a resident of the USA for fourteen years(which is already there, you can't be president if you've been a US citizen living abroad until fourteen years later). I'd rather change the age requrement to a "Has been a United States Citizen for at least thirty-five years" than that one. But then, I oppose the "defense of marriage" stuff too.
Of course, I'd allow gays in the military, but don't like having different standards for men and women. I'd allow civil unions, but I'd only give civil unions to straight couples too, if you want to be married get a priest or whatever. I'd allow abortion, but wouldn't want to spend any tax money on it unless it was a true health of the mother issue. I frown more the later it occurs, but I believe that people should be able to do stupid things. I also think that people should experience the consequences of their actions, whether positive or negative. I'm pro-assisted suicide(If done in a truly consensual fashion). I'm also pro-death penalty. I'd legalize drugs and lock down the borders. I'd make immigration easier, but believe that people intending to live in the USA should learn English. I'm strictly pro-2nd amendment. And for the first, too. I think that the time for "affirmative action" has passed. But I don't believe that that means that I have to listen too you. I think that that the government's too big and taxes are too high. I think that regulation is strangling our business and costing jobs.
What's all this mean? I don't really like Bush. But I really disliked Kerry. I disliked him due to his voting record, and his actions after coming back. The "religious right" was already in Bush's pocket. Those he needed were people more like me. If one of the other candidates had made it through the primaries, I might of had a much more difficult time.
If the democratic party had run a tough on terror, smaller government, balanced budget, pro-gun cadidate I just might of voted for him or her.
The man could not do sincere, and being a senator, with the public voting record, made it easy to determine his policies, regardless of what came out his mouth.
One thing that gets me is that even within the United States, there are major variations in climate and weather. Yet I've seen homes pretty much identical in both North Dakota and Florida. In one you have to worry about extreme cold(-30 or so), pipes freezing, snow on the roof, etc... In florida, you have to worry more about heat, humidity, bugs, mildew/mold, precipitation, and hurricane force winds.
Why should buildings built for different areas be the same? It's not like homes are moved much, so why not customize for the conditions and building materials of the area the home is to be built in?
Actually, I think that the really traditional Adobe houses took earthquakes more or less fine. Many of the deaths in the mideast are more due to people living in shacks built from scavanged materials, where they didn't even have the resources to create the traditional type homes.
Also, fads factor into this, as people want to build a "western" home, without doing the fancy things required to make them earthquake resistant.
Remember the town that was buried in ash from a volcano? Many of the buildings remained intact.
Do the words "I need that to live" mean nothing to you? With breast cancer medicines or allergy medication, deciding that the price isn't right just isn't an option, because without it...you die.
There is no "wonder" drug that guarentees a cure. There are many treatment options, which vary depending on the condition. There is hardly ever a case where a person's life can be absolutly tied to just one drug or treatment.
Nobody has presented any proof that this is the case. The PMPB doesn't pull prices out of their asses, they use a median of prices in industrialized nations (the USA included) to set the price. That's hardly walmart style marginalized cost.
But you also toss the European markets in there, who do do the "marginalized cost" thing, and because you're taking the median, you end up doing the same thing.
Another thing to remember is that all presecription drugs sold in canada are done with an extra 30+% on their margins right off the bat because it's illegal to advertise prescription drugs in canada(many drug companies spend more on marketing than anything else).
And many don't. Matter of fact, I don't ever remember seeing a chemotherapy drug advertised. Rogaine, Viagra, Claritin(just made over the counter), and something to do with menopause or something. None of them life-threatening.
The flu vaccine isn't patented, so it's not covered by the PMPB. In fact, the fact that you're worried that there's only two manufacturers left makes this situation completely different.
I fail to see why it's different. Through the vaccine purchase program, prices were effictively set too low to cover the liability for the flu vaccine and still make a profit. Thus, companies got out of the flu-vaccine. The price-fixing is the same, not the patent. I'm against the idea of price fixing/controls, as it often leads to shortages.
If a drug company experiences an accident that limits production, who's going to be cut off first? Canada or the USA?
Only when it benefits companies who can set whatever price they want for the tiny uninsured proles
Not really. The set it too high and the 'proles' won't buy it. If you halve the profit per piece (profit=price-cost), but more than double your sales, you're making more money. Incidentally, Marx would have a hard time classifying many americans into the "Proletariat" or "bourgeoisie". I work for a wage for a living, but I own stock, so I'm a owner.
but the lot of you are acting like we're commiting some sort of sin because we're getting lower prices by force
But I don't think it's a sin. I think that our insurance companies need to get a backbone. Heck, I like the idea of the healthcare savings plans. People are too disconnected from the costs of healthcare. You're getting lower prices not by force, but by a walmart level of "sell for this price (just above marginal costs), or you don't get our market.
yourself included, have some seriously warped, hypocritical values
Huh? Hypocritical values? I try to be very consistant in my values. I will say that I'm not 100% consistent, because I'm human.
I mention again that it's things like breast cancer medicine and allergy medicine which have the greatest price drops -- Viagra and Prozac are more expensive in Canada than they are in the US.
Ah! So because Viagra and Prozac make more money in Canada, it's logical for the drug companies to research more along those lines! Since Canada doesn't allow profit margins for life saving drugs, we won't research or produce them!
This happened with the flu vaccine in America. The fed.gov implimented a large vaccine purchase program, bargained down the price in the same fashion as Canada, and next thing you know, we're down to two flu vaccine makers, one not even in the country, because the profit margin is too low.
And a problem happens with one, and next thing you know...
because they produce drugs, they're entitled to set any price they want
Yep. And not just because they had to do research to create the drug. They made it, they get to set the price they'll sell it at.
The research & development is the argument that gives them the x years of patent rights. It gives them a legal monopoly for a limited time, allowing them to make a return on their investment.
anybody who tries to get a better price is immoral Nope, in the free market you're actually supposed to try to get the best price you can. I wish the drug companies would stand up to Europe and Canada and say "Fine, if you won't take this price, we won't sell it to you".
That's the free market for you. If they set the price too high, people won't buy from them. The company wants to make the most profit they can, the purchaser wants to get the best deal he or she can.
In return for paying more for the new wonder drug of the year, we get the benefit of accelerated research into developing the next wonder drug of the year. Every company hopes to develop the next Viagra, dreads making the next Vioxxen, and needs a annual return of at least 6-10% of funds invested per year to justify the investment. And that needs to include the risk of the product being unusable. If a drug only has a 50% chance of making it, it needs to have the potential of returning 12-20% to make up for the chance of it failing. This is like junk bonds. If you have a history of not paying off the bonds you issue, or even look like you might not be able to pay off, you're going to have to pay a higher interest rate to overcome investor's preference for more reliability.
The free market is not kind, guarenteed, or personal. What it is is efficient.
I don't like paying more for drugs (well, actually I don't have to pay for drugs, as my medical coverage pays for it).
However, I believe that capitalism with a few controls is ultimatly the best method for providing availability, progress, and (ultimatly)low prices.
Drugs in the United States, once they're out of patent and can be made by the generic companies, are often cheaper than your drugs. The same with drugs where alternates are available.
The promise of the possibility of great rewards is what gets the drug companies to spend the resources developing new drugs.
Do I think that Canada & Europe should pay their fair share? Yes. And we do have collective bargaining. Many insurance companies do it, reducing the price they pay.
Step 1: Seperate out the cargo and personel lift operations.
Step 2: Replace the shuttle with something smaller and more efficient. Whether that uses a lifting body design or simply plops down using albative shielding is a project for the rocket scientists. Figure out if it's cheaper to use a reusable, rebuildable design, or to just go disposable. Safety is a design spec.
Step 3: Design a series of efficient cargo rockets for a range of cargos. The largest should be able to lift double size ISS modules. Try to get weekly launches, so that you can actually get some benefit from mass production.
Step 4: Work with the ISS for now, but work on designing a replacement modular station system. Think tinker toy. Talk with Bigelow about inflatable modules(note:I'd talk with anybody who'd spent that much money in research). Put it in a more useful orbit.
Step 5: When research comes up, either use a generic research module, or design a customized one. If the custom one isn't going to be a long term study, try to design it so that it can be re-purposed. Launch more modules as necessary, but try to not bring stuff back, instead look at using solar power, hydroponics, and other stuff to recycle. Heck, those can be research modules too(at least at first). Sending up mass is expensive, let's try to keep it there.
Step 6: Use this station to stage for trips to the moon, mars, and other places. Specially designed modules could be used to make a spacecraft. Remember the civilization method of sending a spacecraft to win the game? You built it with modules...
research&testing costs for drugs that never make it
Potential for a recall and lawsuits like Vioxx
For every company that gets lucky, there's probably one that looses. That's the nature of capitalism.
Doesn't Canada get it's drugs cheap, not so much because of "informed multiple customers" but more like "One monolithic customer" that won't buy your product if you don't agree to sell it for barely over your expenses. IE like what Wal-Mart does to it's suppliers.
I think it's bad for NASA too. The problem with resting when you have a lead is momentum. As in when you realize they're catching up, you're not moving. By the time you get moving, they've passed you.
The military wants new stuff because so much is at stake. Total dominance on the battlefield actually reduces casualties for both sides (though it is canted towards the winners). But we also use a huge amount of old stuff. Think about how long we've been using the B-52, or even the F-15, F-14, and F-16. That's why we're working on the F-22 so hard. Other countries are catching up.
Satellite retreival was indeed one of the shuttle's missions on the design board. However, the weight capability is not great.
Most of the abilities were adjusted down when the shuttle was being designed, as physics and material science reared their heads. Whole missions were scrapped.
The previous post was for the New International Translation. Here's the King James:
And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise
The NIV version makes it seem that he made a whip for the cattle, the KJV seems to say that he used the whip rather more liberally. Of course, I can't read the original, so I don't know which might be more accurate.
Money lenders? It's been a while since bible school, but weren't they money changers? Some sort of scam that only certain monies were 'holy' enough to be donations?
Quote: When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"
Let's see, he whipped the cattle out of the temple. Threw the money-changer's coins around, overturned their tables (remember, these tables would not be the card tables of today. Think dinner table), and yelled at the guys selling birds. I can't imagine him being able to do all this without getting at least a little physical with somebody. Would you just sit there and allow somebody to throw your money around?
This made me think of a mantra I was taught in my waste reduction training.
Reduce Reuse Recycle
I'd rather see cell phones that you're going to keep for years(reduce) than a number of decomposable (recycle?) cell phones. At the same time I actually want one with a bigger battery.
And at 1/250 the price, you don't need all that. In the current situation, only the temperature and possibly the sand matter. At $1000 a pop, it's disposable. When we're done in Iraq, we can chuck them. It's not a big deal if one gets blown up. It's not likely to have to take far below freezing in the AOR, it's not going to have to worry about deep snow. It's going to be used in the towns and along the roads, not on the beach.
With the COTS program, if this meets a demand in the AOR, individual commanders can buy them by the boatload.
Most batteries will loose charge after 8 years in a depot, but if you have regular battery service, this should be able to take it. You'd just have to charge it before use, probably in location or while shipping.
IR sensors could be hooked up to set off a detonation too.
As the general idea is to safely blow the IED, you really don't care if the RF sets off the mine, as long as everybody is at a safe distance. If you get to drop the charge and get the vehicle back, goodie, if not, well a $1k device is cheaper than a $5k device.
You could go with a cabled control, but it ends up being that the trigger on the bomb can be anything, so you approach it with something you're willing to possibly have blown up. If you care about the building, go ahead and deploy the $10k drone with the water shotgun to attempt to disarm it.
But doesn't that mean access to every conceivable weapon? Surely you're not advocating that a citizen should be allowed to own M249s or PKs, for instance?
Actually, I do. Well, not including WMD. I define "Arms" as something an infantry soldier can be expected to move and use by his own muscles. Rifles, handguns, grenades, blades, and such. A permiting system for artillery, armed warplanes, AA guns and such.
Now if somebody messes up with one, I support throwing the book followed by very fast bits of copper coated lead at them.
I live in North Dakota. Tidal Power is a bit far away. Solar would produce something like 40% of the power it would down in Texas, for the same size plant. Wind might work, but you still need a backup.
Nuclear produces waste, yes, but it's not pollution, so it's not dirty. And I think that nuclear is acceptably dirty. As least for now. You put it in a pool for a few half lives, then you stick it in a sealed tank for a few more, then you either put in Yucca mountain or it's replacement once it's cool enough to not eat it's way through the containment, and that's if you don't reprocess it and use it for more fuel.
Uranium isn't rare. There's lots of deposits of it, it's just that it's not economical to extract until some of the easier sources are exhausted. And we know so many locations for it that we don't really need to look for more. As far as testing the technology, France, Japan, China, and South Africa are all testing new technology.
Ag waste? Ag waste gets turned into fertalizer. And once you start playing with the numbers, our biomass gets used up rather quickly.
I looked at corn heating at the last fair, though it was a really neat system. Electronic feed control, cheap fuel (dry feed corn). However, if you started converting large numbers of homes to it, the price of corn would rise.
Slashdot Mirror
Arnold is a California Republican. He'd be a democrat in most of the rest of the states.
I oppose ammending the constitution to allow him to run. I especially dislike the one that simply makes it so that you have to have been a resident of the USA for fourteen years(which is already there, you can't be president if you've been a US citizen living abroad until fourteen years later). I'd rather change the age requrement to a "Has been a United States Citizen for at least thirty-five years" than that one. But then, I oppose the "defense of marriage" stuff too.
Of course, I'd allow gays in the military, but don't like having different standards for men and women. I'd allow civil unions, but I'd only give civil unions to straight couples too, if you want to be married get a priest or whatever. I'd allow abortion, but wouldn't want to spend any tax money on it unless it was a true health of the mother issue. I frown more the later it occurs, but I believe that people should be able to do stupid things. I also think that people should experience the consequences of their actions, whether positive or negative. I'm pro-assisted suicide(If done in a truly consensual fashion). I'm also pro-death penalty. I'd legalize drugs and lock down the borders. I'd make immigration easier, but believe that people intending to live in the USA should learn English. I'm strictly pro-2nd amendment. And for the first, too. I think that the time for "affirmative action" has passed. But I don't believe that that means that I have to listen too you. I think that that the government's too big and taxes are too high. I think that regulation is strangling our business and costing jobs.
What's all this mean? I don't really like Bush. But I really disliked Kerry. I disliked him due to his voting record, and his actions after coming back. The "religious right" was already in Bush's pocket. Those he needed were people more like me. If one of the other candidates had made it through the primaries, I might of had a much more difficult time.
If the democratic party had run a tough on terror, smaller government, balanced budget, pro-gun cadidate I just might of voted for him or her.
Dole was a horrible canidate
And Kerry was a horrible candidate too.
The man could not do sincere, and being a senator, with the public voting record, made it easy to determine his policies, regardless of what came out his mouth.
Ash is alot like paper. A single sheet is nothing. A ream starts getting heavy... A box is barely considered one-man portable.
The town was buried under meters of the stuff. And of course you have the seismics from the volcano nearby going...
One thing that gets me is that even within the United States, there are major variations in climate and weather. Yet I've seen homes pretty much identical in both North Dakota and Florida. In one you have to worry about extreme cold(-30 or so), pipes freezing, snow on the roof, etc... In florida, you have to worry more about heat, humidity, bugs, mildew/mold, precipitation, and hurricane force winds.
Why should buildings built for different areas be the same? It's not like homes are moved much, so why not customize for the conditions and building materials of the area the home is to be built in?
Actually, I think that the really traditional Adobe houses took earthquakes more or less fine. Many of the deaths in the mideast are more due to people living in shacks built from scavanged materials, where they didn't even have the resources to create the traditional type homes.
Also, fads factor into this, as people want to build a "western" home, without doing the fancy things required to make them earthquake resistant.
Remember the town that was buried in ash from a volcano? Many of the buildings remained intact.
Do the words "I need that to live" mean nothing to you? With breast cancer medicines or allergy medication, deciding that the price isn't right just isn't an option, because without it...you die.
There is no "wonder" drug that guarentees a cure. There are many treatment options, which vary depending on the condition. There is hardly ever a case where a person's life can be absolutly tied to just one drug or treatment.
Nobody has presented any proof that this is the case. The PMPB doesn't pull prices out of their asses, they use a median of prices in industrialized nations (the USA included) to set the price. That's hardly walmart style marginalized cost.
But you also toss the European markets in there, who do do the "marginalized cost" thing, and because you're taking the median, you end up doing the same thing.
Another thing to remember is that all presecription drugs sold in canada are done with an extra 30+% on their margins right off the bat because it's illegal to advertise prescription drugs in canada(many drug companies spend more on marketing than anything else).
And many don't. Matter of fact, I don't ever remember seeing a chemotherapy drug advertised. Rogaine, Viagra, Claritin(just made over the counter), and something to do with menopause or something. None of them life-threatening.
The flu vaccine isn't patented, so it's not covered by the PMPB. In fact, the fact that you're worried that there's only two manufacturers left makes this situation completely different.
I fail to see why it's different. Through the vaccine purchase program, prices were effictively set too low to cover the liability for the flu vaccine and still make a profit. Thus, companies got out of the flu-vaccine. The price-fixing is the same, not the patent. I'm against the idea of price fixing/controls, as it often leads to shortages.
If a drug company experiences an accident that limits production, who's going to be cut off first? Canada or the USA?
Only when it benefits companies who can set whatever price they want for the tiny uninsured proles
Not really. The set it too high and the 'proles' won't buy it. If you halve the profit per piece (profit=price-cost), but more than double your sales, you're making more money. Incidentally, Marx would have a hard time classifying many americans into the "Proletariat" or "bourgeoisie". I work for a wage for a living, but I own stock, so I'm a owner.
but the lot of you are acting like we're commiting some sort of sin because we're getting lower prices by force
But I don't think it's a sin. I think that our insurance companies need to get a backbone. Heck, I like the idea of the healthcare savings plans. People are too disconnected from the costs of healthcare. You're getting lower prices not by force, but by a walmart level of "sell for this price (just above marginal costs), or you don't get our market.
yourself included, have some seriously warped, hypocritical values
Huh? Hypocritical values? I try to be very consistant in my values. I will say that I'm not 100% consistent, because I'm human.
I mention again that it's things like breast cancer medicine and allergy medicine which have the greatest price drops -- Viagra and Prozac are more expensive in Canada than they are in the US.
Ah! So because Viagra and Prozac make more money in Canada, it's logical for the drug companies to research more along those lines! Since Canada doesn't allow profit margins for life saving drugs, we won't research or produce them!
This happened with the flu vaccine in America. The fed.gov implimented a large vaccine purchase program, bargained down the price in the same fashion as Canada, and next thing you know, we're down to two flu vaccine makers, one not even in the country, because the profit margin is too low.
And a problem happens with one, and next thing you know...
because they produce drugs, they're entitled to set any price they want
Yep. And not just because they had to do research to create the drug. They made it, they get to set the price they'll sell it at.
The research & development is the argument that gives them the x years of patent rights. It gives them a legal monopoly for a limited time, allowing them to make a return on their investment.
anybody who tries to get a better price is immoral
Nope, in the free market you're actually supposed to try to get the best price you can. I wish the drug companies would stand up to Europe and Canada and say "Fine, if you won't take this price, we won't sell it to you".
That's the free market for you. If they set the price too high, people won't buy from them. The company wants to make the most profit they can, the purchaser wants to get the best deal he or she can.
In return for paying more for the new wonder drug of the year, we get the benefit of accelerated research into developing the next wonder drug of the year. Every company hopes to develop the next Viagra, dreads making the next Vioxxen, and needs a annual return of at least 6-10% of funds invested per year to justify the investment. And that needs to include the risk of the product being unusable. If a drug only has a 50% chance of making it, it needs to have the potential of returning 12-20% to make up for the chance of it failing. This is like junk bonds. If you have a history of not paying off the bonds you issue, or even look like you might not be able to pay off, you're going to have to pay a higher interest rate to overcome investor's preference for more reliability.
The free market is not kind, guarenteed, or personal. What it is is efficient.
I don't like paying more for drugs (well, actually I don't have to pay for drugs, as my medical coverage pays for it).
However, I believe that capitalism with a few controls is ultimatly the best method for providing availability, progress, and (ultimatly)low prices.
Drugs in the United States, once they're out of patent and can be made by the generic companies, are often cheaper than your drugs. The same with drugs where alternates are available.
The promise of the possibility of great rewards is what gets the drug companies to spend the resources developing new drugs.
Do I think that Canada & Europe should pay their fair share? Yes. And we do have collective bargaining. Many insurance companies do it, reducing the price they pay.
Step 1: Seperate out the cargo and personel lift operations.
Step 2: Replace the shuttle with something smaller and more efficient. Whether that uses a lifting body design or simply plops down using albative shielding is a project for the rocket scientists. Figure out if it's cheaper to use a reusable, rebuildable design, or to just go disposable. Safety is a design spec.
Step 3: Design a series of efficient cargo rockets for a range of cargos. The largest should be able to lift double size ISS modules. Try to get weekly launches, so that you can actually get some benefit from mass production.
Step 4: Work with the ISS for now, but work on designing a replacement modular station system. Think tinker toy. Talk with Bigelow about inflatable modules(note:I'd talk with anybody who'd spent that much money in research). Put it in a more useful orbit.
Step 5: When research comes up, either use a generic research module, or design a customized one. If the custom one isn't going to be a long term study, try to design it so that it can be re-purposed. Launch more modules as necessary, but try to not bring stuff back, instead look at using solar power, hydroponics, and other stuff to recycle. Heck, those can be research modules too(at least at first). Sending up mass is expensive, let's try to keep it there.
Step 6: Use this station to stage for trips to the moon, mars, and other places. Specially designed modules could be used to make a spacecraft. Remember the civilization method of sending a spacecraft to win the game? You built it with modules...
- research&testing costs for drugs that never make it
- Potential for a recall and lawsuits like Vioxx
For every company that gets lucky, there's probably one that looses. That's the nature of capitalism. Doesn't Canada get it's drugs cheap, not so much because of "informed multiple customers" but more like "One monolithic customer" that won't buy your product if you don't agree to sell it for barely over your expenses. IE like what Wal-Mart does to it's suppliers.I think it's bad for NASA too. The problem with resting when you have a lead is momentum. As in when you realize they're catching up, you're not moving. By the time you get moving, they've passed you.
The military wants new stuff because so much is at stake. Total dominance on the battlefield actually reduces casualties for both sides (though it is canted towards the winners). But we also use a huge amount of old stuff. Think about how long we've been using the B-52, or even the F-15, F-14, and F-16. That's why we're working on the F-22 so hard. Other countries are catching up.
Satellite retreival was indeed one of the shuttle's missions on the design board. However, the weight capability is not great.
Most of the abilities were adjusted down when the shuttle was being designed, as physics and material science reared their heads. Whole missions were scrapped.
The previous post was for the New International Translation. Here's the King James:
And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise
The NIV version makes it seem that he made a whip for the cattle, the KJV seems to say that he used the whip rather more liberally. Of course, I can't read the original, so I don't know which might be more accurate.
Money lenders? It's been a while since bible school, but weren't they money changers? Some sort of scam that only certain monies were 'holy' enough to be donations?
Quote:
When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"
Let's see, he whipped the cattle out of the temple. Threw the money-changer's coins around, overturned their tables (remember, these tables would not be the card tables of today. Think dinner table), and yelled at the guys selling birds. I can't imagine him being able to do all this without getting at least a little physical with somebody. Would you just sit there and allow somebody to throw your money around?
He said FireFox, not Mozilla. Mozilla is the suite, firefox is just the browser portion.
This made me think of a mantra I was taught in my waste reduction training.
Reduce
Reuse
Recycle
I'd rather see cell phones that you're going to keep for years(reduce) than a number of decomposable (recycle?) cell phones. At the same time I actually want one with a bigger battery.
Not to mention what would happen if you didn't put the bags in a can, and it was a bit too long before the trash man came by...
There's a reason Glad advertises about strength. Garbage is near the top of the list of stuff you don't want breaking open.
And at 1/250 the price, you don't need all that. In the current situation, only the temperature and possibly the sand matter. At $1000 a pop, it's disposable. When we're done in Iraq, we can chuck them. It's not a big deal if one gets blown up. It's not likely to have to take far below freezing in the AOR, it's not going to have to worry about deep snow. It's going to be used in the towns and along the roads, not on the beach.
With the COTS program, if this meets a demand in the AOR, individual commanders can buy them by the boatload.
Most batteries will loose charge after 8 years in a depot, but if you have regular battery service, this should be able to take it. You'd just have to charge it before use, probably in location or while shipping.
Hmm.. I've only heard of one.
And that murder was done by a police officer using a department weapon.
I'm sure that the final device will use something like this. This is the prototype/proof of concept.
If they get a contract to build a few thousand of these, I'm sure they'll be buying parts in bulk from various companies.
IR sensors could be hooked up to set off a detonation too.
As the general idea is to safely blow the IED, you really don't care if the RF sets off the mine, as long as everybody is at a safe distance. If you get to drop the charge and get the vehicle back, goodie, if not, well a $1k device is cheaper than a $5k device.
You could go with a cabled control, but it ends up being that the trigger on the bomb can be anything, so you approach it with something you're willing to possibly have blown up. If you care about the building, go ahead and deploy the $10k drone with the water shotgun to attempt to disarm it.
Probably not heavy enough to set them off. IED's are a pain enough, being able to take out vehicles & passangers, that measures such as this are good.
For a minefield, you bring out the flail-tank.
But doesn't that mean access to every conceivable weapon? Surely you're not advocating that a citizen should be allowed to own M249s or PKs, for instance?
Actually, I do. Well, not including WMD. I define "Arms" as something an infantry soldier can be expected to move and use by his own muscles. Rifles, handguns, grenades, blades, and such. A permiting system for artillery, armed warplanes, AA guns and such.
Now if somebody messes up with one, I support throwing the book followed by very fast bits of copper coated lead at them.
I live in North Dakota. Tidal Power is a bit far away. Solar would produce something like 40% of the power it would down in Texas, for the same size plant. Wind might work, but you still need a backup.
Nuclear produces waste, yes, but it's not pollution, so it's not dirty. And I think that nuclear is acceptably dirty. As least for now. You put it in a pool for a few half lives, then you stick it in a sealed tank for a few more, then you either put in Yucca mountain or it's replacement once it's cool enough to not eat it's way through the containment, and that's if you don't reprocess it and use it for more fuel.
Uranium isn't rare. There's lots of deposits of it, it's just that it's not economical to extract until some of the easier sources are exhausted. And we know so many locations for it that we don't really need to look for more. As far as testing the technology, France, Japan, China, and South Africa are all testing new technology.
Ag waste? Ag waste gets turned into fertalizer. And once you start playing with the numbers, our biomass gets used up rather quickly.
I looked at corn heating at the last fair, though it was a really neat system. Electronic feed control, cheap fuel (dry feed corn). However, if you started converting large numbers of homes to it, the price of corn would rise.