We've eliminated the predators in most of the country. The game animals will, given the chance, overpopulate the area, strip it of edible plants, causing great enviromental harm, and a large percentage will end up dying of starvation in the winter. It's happened in areas where hunting wasn't allowed.
Also, there's a satisfaction to cooking the game you worked so hard for. Done right, it tastes great.
I already know I'm a libertarian. However, I consider myself something of a realist. Republicans/Conservatives: The religious faction scares me. They like to try to regulate our private lives too much. They also tend to spend money like the liberals Liberals: I think this party has been hijacked. The major gun grabbers are members of this party. They're too fond of government regulation, affirmative action, and welfare. Constitutionalists: Religious right who want reduced government.
Give me a pro-gun rights, balanced budget, non-tax raising liberal, and I'd vote for them in a minute(though I retain the right to judge the whole candidate if one ever shows up).
And what's so unfortunate about the pro-gun voting block? I happen to be one of them.
And yes, Hunters are pro Enviroment. The better the enviroment, the better the hunting. You can also argue that (true) hunters are more aware of the enviroment than many of the 'green' party. It takes skill, knowledge, preperation, and effort to successfully stalk wild game, make a clean kill, and prepare the meat.
There's a number of things I disagree with both parties about. I tend to be pro-self reliance, pro-liberty, moderatly green.
I'm for green when it's not economicly crippling, and for providing regulations that encourage companies to still upgrade & improve emissions/pollution, rather than hiding under grandfather clauses.
You don't know that manual mode is available to all. Will's playing a cop with a hot car. Manual might be an extra feature that Will's character had to qualify and pay for.
Don't forget that the plane can often shave distance off what the car would have to travel, being able to fly more or less straight to the destination. For example, my drive to my parents follows pythagorean. a^2+b^2=c^2. Flying would cut a fair amount of miles off the drive. Also, depending on the season and route, you can often hitch a ride with currents, allowing you to get a free boost from the wind. You can often pick the most conductive wind, as it tends to vary between altitudes.
A flying car: a: won't have a significant payload capacity compared to a panel truck or even a conventional car. If they stuff it full of explosives, it won't take off. b: Doesn't carry that much more fuel than a conventional car. c: There was in incident of a mentally disturbed person running a small plane into the second floor of a bank down in florida. Besides the pilot, no casualties, and the damage wasn't any more than a car could have done to the ground floor.
I'd see having two of them. One in the front, one in the back. The roof can stay thin...
Besides, how different from 'what use are my bumpers if I runn into a truck hauling wood beams that are sticking 20ft out the back?' is this question? Sure, a parachute won't work all the time, but it will work most of the time. Nothing is absolutely safe.
Think of a parachute sized for a car, but designed to operate as quickly (or more) as a base jumper's chute.
Only problem I see is avoiding the big accident floating down from a higher altitude. Of course, having an accident transponder that triggers an alarm in your car would help.
Densly populated areas like NYC are not suitable for flying 'cars'. For one thing skyscrapers tend to mess with the thermals, making flying around them interesting.
I think a better solution would to have a comprehensive underground single car 'light rail' system. You get in, insert your rail card, punch in your address (station on every block), and it runs you to your destination on the most efficient route as decided by a computer. Keep the larger lines for massive crowds (and make it cheaper than the small car). Have a car-port out on the edge or a little further for storage of people's cars.
Did tech support get lots of calls when DVD came out? They are the same size. You'd just need a campaign to educate users. You'd be better off not calling it a CD or DVD-B or something.
And I've seen 'virtual windows on a server' as a concept. I think it was from Sun. It really didn't save you anything on the hardware or software, but it would let you sit down at any thin client and pull up *your* desktop, without the mess that is roaming profiles. It would also let the administrators update the systems very easily.
Well, as far as dollars per hour go, I'd pay so little that a minimum wage job would be be the better choice. But when you lump in the benefits of 'free' housing(barracks or dorms), food(dining hall), and medical care, the work program can 'compete'. Remember, I don't want people on it. It should be the last gasp 'I can't support myself or my family otherwise'. If a company that pays almost minimum wage right now wants workers, they'll have to pay for them. I live in one of the cheapest areas in the country and even McDonald's can't get many workers for minimum wage anymore.
As for being available to all, only if it pays for itself or breaks even.
I didn't say anything about it being mandatory. It's just that instead of having the dole, you pay people to do something more or less useful if they can't get a job in the commercial market. There are a number of productive and profitable jobs that don't require college (think construction and utility). Plumbers, for example, often have apprenticeships.
The minimum wage would become meaningless because if a job isn't better than the 'Federal Work Program', they won't be able to get workers. Well, maybe immigrants, who wouldn't be elgible(bad enough I have to support US citizens, but foreigners and illegals?).
Maybe not where you are, but where I am, it's a very very big issue. Of course, I'm in a more or less rural area. There are anti-abortion billboards all over the place. There is a large number of anti-abortion voters who will not vote for sombody they think is pro-choice.
I kinda like the time I saw a political scale that didn't go just "left" or "right". They split the political scale into Social Control->Social Freedom and Economic Control -> Economic Freedom.
Democrats tend toward Social Freedom w/Economic Control, while the Republicans tend towards Social Control/Economic Freedom.
I think that he was trying to say that both whites and blacks suffer from the same problems, so why concentrate on the blacks? We're supposed to be color blind.
For example, what high school you graduate from and the marital status of your family have a greater statistical correlation to how you'll do in life than the color of your skin. If a white boy grows up in a bad neighborhood, goes to a bad school, and comes from a single parent family, he's just as challanged as his next door neighbor.
If they aren't "smart" enough, they must be handicapped, so a different system would apply, given that even very stupid people can get jobs. My grandmother worked with severly retarded people, and over half of them had regular work. It took specially trained supervisors, and they could only do certain tasks, but they worked and earned a wage.
If they're too lazy, well, you make the prison system bad enough that even a lazy person won't want to go there. Hunger is a wonderful motivater.
If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, no, we won't take just anyone, at least not any more.
We require a HS diploma/GED, fairly clean criminal record, physically able, not too many or too large tatoos, and a test to pass (note: you can still get in with a 25%, so it's not too hard).
I'm mostly libertarian, but I think that a replacement for welfare and a minimum wage would be a 'federal work program' modeled after the pay and benefits we gave E-1's about ten years ago. Food, shelter, clothing, and training are provided along with a small stipedend for other things in exchange for 40 hours of work a week. I wouldn't really care if they're put to work picking up trash off the roads. The point is that they have to work for it.
Close, you can still fuse heavier elements (that's how we've extended the periodic table over the years), it's just that it costs energy to do it. We can re-split a Helium atom, it just takes energy to do it. I've read that our supply of heavier elements were made in super-novas and such.
Fission tends to be easier to perform, because as you get higher on the table, the atoms tend to be unstable anyways, while hydrogen is perfectly happy to stay the way it is unless under extreme pressure and heat.
This is why you design it so that it takes no human intervention to shut down in critical stages. There should be a containment section so that even if the chamber blows, the radioactive material doesn't contaminate the surrounding area.
And modern designs don't claim to be "serious failure" free, they claim to be "melt-down" free.
And human operators should be on the ball, because if the fail-safes trigger, the reactor will probably be down for quite some time.
And I think that I should note that I've heard a lot of "could have beens" in this discussion and others. A control worked! A redesign can be done to fix the error that caused the problem/initial failure.
And this is different from poisonous elements like lead and arsenic how? Oh yeah, it goes away over time.
If we were willing to take a practical approach, we wouldn't have this problem. Dump it in a subduction zone, use it in breeder reactors for more power. There are solutions. I'd rather live around a properly run fission plant than a coal plant.
"Spent" fuel still has plenty of Uranium in it. So you can take that spent fuel, do a quick chemical seperation, and generate more *usable* fuel. Like the earlier poster said, PU (plutonium) can also be used and generated in certain reactor designs (commonly called "breeder" reactors). By using a system like this, it's stated that you can use about 75% of the uranium, rather than 1% of light water reactors. And a number of the byproducts will also fission, producing even more power. More than 75 times the power? I'd say that'd extend the lifespan of fission! It'd give us plenty of time to figure out fusion, or your solar energy. Waste wouldn't be as big of a deal, because there'd be 1/75 as much of it, and I've read that the waste has a shorter half life, so it'd only be dangerously radioactive for a couple centuries rather than thousands of years.
Fore more information, there are a number of sites such as this Reason why we don't have breeder reactors I've read that any nucleas heavier than Iron gives off energy when split, and atom lighter gives energy when fused. The further from Iron, the easier and more energy it gives.
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing some of the points.
We've eliminated the predators in most of the country. The game animals will, given the chance, overpopulate the area, strip it of edible plants, causing great enviromental harm, and a large percentage will end up dying of starvation in the winter. It's happened in areas where hunting wasn't allowed.
Also, there's a satisfaction to cooking the game you worked so hard for. Done right, it tastes great.
I already know I'm a libertarian. However, I consider myself something of a realist.
Republicans/Conservatives: The religious faction scares me. They like to try to regulate our private lives too much. They also tend to spend money like the liberals
Liberals: I think this party has been hijacked. The major gun grabbers are members of this party. They're too fond of government regulation, affirmative action, and welfare.
Constitutionalists: Religious right who want reduced government.
Give me a pro-gun rights, balanced budget, non-tax raising liberal, and I'd vote for them in a minute(though I retain the right to judge the whole candidate if one ever shows up).
And what's so unfortunate about the pro-gun voting block? I happen to be one of them.
And yes, Hunters are pro Enviroment. The better the enviroment, the better the hunting. You can also argue that (true) hunters are more aware of the enviroment than many of the 'green' party. It takes skill, knowledge, preperation, and effort to successfully stalk wild game, make a clean kill, and prepare the meat.
There's a number of things I disagree with both parties about. I tend to be pro-self reliance, pro-liberty, moderatly green.
I'm for green when it's not economicly crippling, and for providing regulations that encourage companies to still upgrade & improve emissions/pollution, rather than hiding under grandfather clauses.
Only marginally...
A light plane/flying car doesn't have enough carrying capacity, mass, or fuel to do a significant amount of damage.
A land bound car/truck/SUV on the other hand has a lot of mass and carrying capacity.
You don't know that manual mode is available to all. Will's playing a cop with a hot car. Manual might be an extra feature that Will's character had to qualify and pay for.
Don't forget that the plane can often shave distance off what the car would have to travel, being able to fly more or less straight to the destination. For example, my drive to my parents follows pythagorean. a^2+b^2=c^2. Flying would cut a fair amount of miles off the drive. Also, depending on the season and route, you can often hitch a ride with currents, allowing you to get a free boost from the wind. You can often pick the most conductive wind, as it tends to vary between altitudes.
A flying car:
a: won't have a significant payload capacity compared to a panel truck or even a conventional car. If they stuff it full of explosives, it won't take off.
b: Doesn't carry that much more fuel than a conventional car.
c: There was in incident of a mentally disturbed person running a small plane into the second floor of a bank down in florida. Besides the pilot, no casualties, and the damage wasn't any more than a car could have done to the ground floor.
I'd see having two of them. One in the front, one in the back. The roof can stay thin...
Besides, how different from 'what use are my bumpers if I runn into a truck hauling wood beams that are sticking 20ft out the back?' is this question? Sure, a parachute won't work all the time, but it will work most of the time. Nothing is absolutely safe.
Think of a parachute sized for a car, but designed to operate as quickly (or more) as a base jumper's chute.
Only problem I see is avoiding the big accident floating down from a higher altitude. Of course, having an accident transponder that triggers an alarm in your car would help.
they never seem to "stack" the skylanes. Why do you think that is?
1: 2d radar
2: Those big planes put out alot of turbulance. There's quite an area behind one where it's not safe to fly for a minute or two.
Densly populated areas like NYC are not suitable for flying 'cars'. For one thing skyscrapers tend to mess with the thermals, making flying around them interesting.
I think a better solution would to have a comprehensive underground single car 'light rail' system. You get in, insert your rail card, punch in your address (station on every block), and it runs you to your destination on the most efficient route as decided by a computer. Keep the larger lines for massive crowds (and make it cheaper than the small car). Have a car-port out on the edge or a little further for storage of people's cars.
Old saying...
Strap a big enough engine on it and anything will fly...
Did tech support get lots of calls when DVD came out? They are the same size. You'd just need a campaign to educate users. You'd be better off not calling it a CD or DVD-B or something.
And I've seen 'virtual windows on a server' as a concept. I think it was from Sun. It really didn't save you anything on the hardware or software, but it would let you sit down at any thin client and pull up *your* desktop, without the mess that is roaming profiles. It would also let the administrators update the systems very easily.
Well, as far as dollars per hour go, I'd pay so little that a minimum wage job would be be the better choice. But when you lump in the benefits of 'free' housing(barracks or dorms), food(dining hall), and medical care, the work program can 'compete'. Remember, I don't want people on it. It should be the last gasp 'I can't support myself or my family otherwise'. If a company that pays almost minimum wage right now wants workers, they'll have to pay for them. I live in one of the cheapest areas in the country and even McDonald's can't get many workers for minimum wage anymore.
As for being available to all, only if it pays for itself or breaks even.
I didn't say anything about it being mandatory. It's just that instead of having the dole, you pay people to do something more or less useful if they can't get a job in the commercial market. There are a number of productive and profitable jobs that don't require college (think construction and utility). Plumbers, for example, often have apprenticeships.
The minimum wage would become meaningless because if a job isn't better than the 'Federal Work Program', they won't be able to get workers. Well, maybe immigrants, who wouldn't be elgible(bad enough I have to support US citizens, but foreigners and illegals?).
Maybe not where you are, but where I am, it's a very very big issue. Of course, I'm in a more or less rural area. There are anti-abortion billboards all over the place. There is a large number of anti-abortion voters who will not vote for sombody they think is pro-choice.
Heh,
I kinda like the time I saw a political scale that didn't go just "left" or "right". They split the political scale into Social Control->Social Freedom and Economic Control -> Economic Freedom.
Democrats tend toward Social Freedom w/Economic Control, while the Republicans tend towards Social Control/Economic Freedom.
I think that he was trying to say that both whites and blacks suffer from the same problems, so why concentrate on the blacks? We're supposed to be color blind.
For example, what high school you graduate from and the marital status of your family have a greater statistical correlation to how you'll do in life than the color of your skin. If a white boy grows up in a bad neighborhood, goes to a bad school, and comes from a single parent family, he's just as challanged as his next door neighbor.
arent smart enough or too lazy to work
If they aren't "smart" enough, they must be handicapped, so a different system would apply, given that even very stupid people can get jobs. My grandmother worked with severly retarded people, and over half of them had regular work. It took specially trained supervisors, and they could only do certain tasks, but they worked and earned a wage.
If they're too lazy, well, you make the prison system bad enough that even a lazy person won't want to go there. Hunger is a wonderful motivater.
If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, no, we won't take just anyone, at least not any more.
We require a HS diploma/GED, fairly clean criminal record, physically able, not too many or too large tatoos, and a test to pass (note: you can still get in with a 25%, so it's not too hard).
I'm mostly libertarian, but I think that a replacement for welfare and a minimum wage would be a 'federal work program' modeled after the pay and benefits we gave E-1's about ten years ago. Food, shelter, clothing, and training are provided along with a small stipedend for other things in exchange for 40 hours of work a week. I wouldn't really care if they're put to work picking up trash off the roads. The point is that they have to work for it.
Close, you can still fuse heavier elements (that's how we've extended the periodic table over the years), it's just that it costs energy to do it. We can re-split a Helium atom, it just takes energy to do it. I've read that our supply of heavier elements were made in super-novas and such.
Fission tends to be easier to perform, because as you get higher on the table, the atoms tend to be unstable anyways, while hydrogen is perfectly happy to stay the way it is unless under extreme pressure and heat.
This is why you design it so that it takes no human intervention to shut down in critical stages. There should be a containment section so that even if the chamber blows, the radioactive material doesn't contaminate the surrounding area.
And modern designs don't claim to be "serious failure" free, they claim to be "melt-down" free.
And human operators should be on the ball, because if the fail-safes trigger, the reactor will probably be down for quite some time.
And I think that I should note that I've heard a lot of "could have beens" in this discussion and others. A control worked! A redesign can be done to fix the error that caused the problem/initial failure.
And this is different from poisonous elements like lead and arsenic how? Oh yeah, it goes away over time.
If we were willing to take a practical approach, we wouldn't have this problem. Dump it in a subduction zone, use it in breeder reactors for more power. There are solutions. I'd rather live around a properly run fission plant than a coal plant.
"Spent" fuel still has plenty of Uranium in it. So you can take that spent fuel, do a quick chemical seperation, and generate more *usable* fuel. Like the earlier poster said, PU (plutonium) can also be used and generated in certain reactor designs (commonly called "breeder" reactors). By using a system like this, it's stated that you can use about 75% of the uranium, rather than 1% of light water reactors. And a number of the byproducts will also fission, producing even more power. More than 75 times the power? I'd say that'd extend the lifespan of fission! It'd give us plenty of time to figure out fusion, or your solar energy. Waste wouldn't be as big of a deal, because there'd be 1/75 as much of it, and I've read that the waste has a shorter half life, so it'd only be dangerously radioactive for a couple centuries rather than thousands of years.
Fore more information, there are a number of sites such as this
Reason why we don't have breeder reactors
I've read that any nucleas heavier than Iron gives off energy when split, and atom lighter gives energy when fused. The further from Iron, the easier and more energy it gives.