How about Europe letting the price of gas drop to real-world levels?
The USA in general has a much lower tax burden than Europe. On the other hand, I've been in countries that when gas was a $1.25-$1.50 a gallon in the US, they were selling it for about 50 cents a gallon, equivalent. Between a third and half of the price of gas in the US is taxes already.
On the other hand, it'd be interesting if I got my wish and the government started stopping all their 'special' taxes, refunds, rebates, deductions, and other subsidies that are jerking the economy into artificial economies.
Different driving habits/weather will most likely have more effect than expansion/contraction because of temperature and tank construction.
Or are you talking about your gas gauge? The method the poster and I use don't depend on the gas gauge. We use the calibrated gas meter on the station's pump, and the trip odometer. Besides, it's not like we're talking 5 significant digits here. We go two, maybe three.
I'd go with food crops personally, rather than trees. I'm sure you could calculate how much food crop you'd require using hydroponics data. You'd have to mulch the waste plant products and be pretty careful about the carbon/oxygen balances until you reach a critical mass. That type of base would be the type to end up being a 'moon colony', capable of supporting itself no less than some third world countries (ie not very well without imports).
On the other hand, this 'mobile' base would require regular complete resupply. It'd work like the ISS, totally dependent on the earth.
Putting nuclear material on the moon is no harder than any other material, and the energy density is so much greater, pretty much necessary if you're not going to depend on solar power, which would require you to hang around in the heat and radiation as well as not being practical for mounting on a giant ball.
And magnetism can be shielded against. Set up a farandy cage or something. It would even need to be hugely powerful, given the low gravity of the moon. I'd be more worried about how to keep the interior upright.
Occasionally checking your gas milage is nice for another reason. If you start loosing mileage for no reason, it's probably an indication that something's wrong with your car.
the letters HP aren't trademarked, a number of computer products starting with 'HP' are, but HP isn't. What's trademarked is the graphical 'HP', the rectangle with a circle cut out, with the slanted 'HP' in the circle.
It would be easy to set up a HP feed company if I wanted too. I would just have a hard time calling a computer 'HP workstation'.
These fuel cells are powered by Methanol, or wood alchohol, instead of Ethanol, the stuff you can drink. So the ATF wouldn't be involved if you're makeing/distilling methanol. Other agencies might be involved for the safety aspect, but as long as you produce it yourself on your own property, you shouldn't be bothered.
On the other hand, I can see it getting quite expensive to produce the quality that these cells probably require to keep from fouling/ruining the catalyst.
Perhaps, because this fuel cell is so small, you don't need the same safety features that a larger cell would need. The plastic casing might be enough to contain a 'catastrophic failure'.
Kinda like that christmas tree sized nuclear reactor that just doesn't have enough mass to melt down...
Even if we weren't prepared to send up a shuttle, we should have been able to at least send up a rocket with extra supplies. Yank the nuke off of an ICBM, fill with supplies, retarget and launch. Heck, buy a capsule from the Russians. Pile on the overtime and get a shuttle ready early.
From what I've read, the Enterprise's structure was built using different materials than the 'production' shuttles. For example, structures were made with aluminum instead of graphite composites in the Enterprise. This results in the Enterprise being quite a bit heavier than the later models.
The problem here is that gunpowder only has so much force and has limitations on it's expansion. If you want more power, you have to go to different chemicals. Modern smokeless burn much more powerfully than gunpowder. They also burn more slowly so that the internal pressure in the chamber is more of a constant to avoid damage to the firearm. Gunpowder 'explodes', so you get a spike of internal pressure.
As for the shape of the projectile, this has a huge effect. A ball isn't the most stable of projectiles, and the more powder you put behind it, the less barrel to travel down. With modern rifled breech-loaders, there are porportions that give far better stability and reduce drag.
Modern artillery already has ranges in excess of a hundred miles, and this technology allows a much more consistant acceleration, resulting in far more speed. Once the sound barrier is broken, the 'sonic boom' is a side-effect of drag, the drag isn't necessarily any more than what the projectile would experience per unit of distance sub-sonically.
It should be noted that some efforts have been made to make an orbital ranged gun.
The question is, what's 'reasonable force'? What's subdued? Just because somebody is on the floor doesn't mean that they can't get back up, or do damage from down there.
We get the idea that Britains aren't allowed to defend themselves from the cases we hear about people being prosecuted for doing things like using their cane to defend themselves.
Odds are, if I have to 'stop' somebody, they're going to either the hospital or the morgue.
At least were I am, the cattle aren't fed grain, they're either allowed to graze or fed hay. Grass is not edible for humans, so it's not the same thing. Grain is used, but as a suppliment, not as a sole diet.
As for what I said, it's an old tradition. How often have government subsidies been 'eliminated'? As production went up, you get some wierd things. Like the conditions for 'not planting'. That's to encourage letting land lay fallow, even though the politicians messed up the wording so it doesn't work for it's exact purpose. It was also indended to keep prices up, so you didn't have large numbers of farmers going out of business. It'd be like over-grazing. If you have a hundred deer in an area that can only support 80 through the winter, you might have 40 die of starvation, because the 20 extra ate for two months before dying of starvation, and took another 20 with them.
Small farmers are more threatened by taxes than a single bad year. They can take insurance out on their crops. If they have to take it, it won't cover their expected profit, but will definatly help if they lose their crop. On the other hand, they can have major problems with estate taxes, as they often run as sole(family) propiaterships. This means that when one dies, the family get's hit with a huge bill.
And your last statement is true. I remember reading that we could last for something like 2-5 years with zero food production, without starvation. We just wouldn't like the food choices.
It should be noted that as a rule I'm against subsidies of all varieties.
If your calibration method is to stick a object of known mass/weight on the scale, your altitude isn't going to matter as long as you aren't moving around too much.
And a scale measures weight whether it's in Kg or lbs.
I'm very much a 'live and let live' type of person, so I don't really understand the thoughts.
Look at materials about some of the really remote african and island tribes. Their language often marks only the tribe as 'human', or maybe 'people'.
Also, look at the old Phrenology research (skull bumps indicators of personality?). There were all sorts of 'studies' that showed blacks had smaller brains, more prone to violence, were not civilized, and much more. Add in religion and some creative quoting, and you'll keep society in line. You convince the logical with the studies, the religious/emotional with stories/religion, and the greedy, well, they have the profit motive.
Most ancient societies practiced slavery, whether it be for redemption of debts, captures from other tribes/countries, hereditary, or for crimes committed. Both the greeks and romans practiced slavery, and it was for people who were essentially the same race. The vikings had the 'dane-geld', essentially a fine for commision of a crime, and you'd essentially become a slave if you couldn't pay it. Heck, even murder was a fine for them. If you couldn't pay, you were given to the familiy for them to do what they wanted with you, including killing you.
My belief that it was a combination of greed and ignorance. You have the 'stands on the shoulders of giants' thing that's went on in the US. Many of the 'founding fathers' didn't necessarily agree with slavery, and they sowed the seeds for it's destruction in the constitution.
But how prevalent is it? The world, heck, just the United States, is big enough, with enough people, that you can get just about any statement if you poll enough. Heck, for extreme statements, your search is even easier as the really extreme people tend to be the loudest.
more "enlightened" as to who was a person (sad, but true).
We grew up, what's so sad about that? That we weren't saints right from the very beginning? As a country, we've had some major growing pains. More so than many countries.
The 18th was passed by a 'fad'. The tyrannical majority managed to get enough of a majority to pass that monstrosity. Then it was repealed when people regained their senses. That is another part of the constitution, and the government set up within, to make it so that a simple majority wouldn't be enough to inflict too much tyranny on the minorities.
But if somebody's going to the butcher, rather than the supermarket, chances are they're going for a more personal product than a supermarket's mass produced stuff.
As far as not being able to test the scales, how hard is it to have a conversion table for the scale weights?
Well, I wouldn't go that far. Depends on how you define 'threatening'. You'd have to go beyond words with me.
Life or Serious bodily harm. Somebody would have to threaten that, and with more than just words, in order for me to resort to personal defense. If I do, however, I'm going to do what I feel necessary to stop the threat. Overwhelming force is good for this.
So, if somebody who's twice as big as you comes up with a baseball bat and says "Don't worry, I'm only going to break both your legs", that you'd let him? Would you believe him? Or would you attempt to stop him, with possibly lethal results for you or him?
Slashdot Mirror
It should be noted that they tried, especially with VHS. They lost, and then the VHS industry went on to make more than the theaters do now...
How about Europe letting the price of gas drop to real-world levels?
The USA in general has a much lower tax burden than Europe. On the other hand, I've been in countries that when gas was a $1.25-$1.50 a gallon in the US, they were selling it for about 50 cents a gallon, equivalent. Between a third and half of the price of gas in the US is taxes already.
On the other hand, it'd be interesting if I got my wish and the government started stopping all their 'special' taxes, refunds, rebates, deductions, and other subsidies that are jerking the economy into artificial economies.
Different driving habits/weather will most likely have more effect than expansion/contraction because of temperature and tank construction.
Or are you talking about your gas gauge? The method the poster and I use don't depend on the gas gauge. We use the calibrated gas meter on the station's pump, and the trip odometer. Besides, it's not like we're talking 5 significant digits here. We go two, maybe three.
I'd go with food crops personally, rather than trees. I'm sure you could calculate how much food crop you'd require using hydroponics data. You'd have to mulch the waste plant products and be pretty careful about the carbon/oxygen balances until you reach a critical mass. That type of base would be the type to end up being a 'moon colony', capable of supporting itself no less than some third world countries (ie not very well without imports).
On the other hand, this 'mobile' base would require regular complete resupply. It'd work like the ISS, totally dependent on the earth.
Putting nuclear material on the moon is no harder than any other material, and the energy density is so much greater, pretty much necessary if you're not going to depend on solar power, which would require you to hang around in the heat and radiation as well as not being practical for mounting on a giant ball.
And magnetism can be shielded against. Set up a farandy cage or something. It would even need to be hugely powerful, given the low gravity of the moon. I'd be more worried about how to keep the interior upright.
Occasionally checking your gas milage is nice for another reason. If you start loosing mileage for no reason, it's probably an indication that something's wrong with your car.
the letters HP aren't trademarked, a number of computer products starting with 'HP' are, but HP isn't. What's trademarked is the graphical 'HP', the rectangle with a circle cut out, with the slanted 'HP' in the circle.
It would be easy to set up a HP feed company if I wanted too. I would just have a hard time calling a computer 'HP workstation'.
These fuel cells are powered by Methanol, or wood alchohol, instead of Ethanol, the stuff you can drink. So the ATF wouldn't be involved if you're makeing/distilling methanol. Other agencies might be involved for the safety aspect, but as long as you produce it yourself on your own property, you shouldn't be bothered.
On the other hand, I can see it getting quite expensive to produce the quality that these cells probably require to keep from fouling/ruining the catalyst.
Perhaps, because this fuel cell is so small, you don't need the same safety features that a larger cell would need. The plastic casing might be enough to contain a 'catastrophic failure'.
Kinda like that christmas tree sized nuclear reactor that just doesn't have enough mass to melt down...
Even if we weren't prepared to send up a shuttle, we should have been able to at least send up a rocket with extra supplies. Yank the nuke off of an ICBM, fill with supplies, retarget and launch. Heck, buy a capsule from the Russians. Pile on the overtime and get a shuttle ready early.
No expense would have been spared to rescue them.
From what I've read, the Enterprise's structure was built using different materials than the 'production' shuttles. For example, structures were made with aluminum instead of graphite composites in the Enterprise. This results in the Enterprise being quite a bit heavier than the later models.
The problem here is that gunpowder only has so much force and has limitations on it's expansion. If you want more power, you have to go to different chemicals. Modern smokeless burn much more powerfully than gunpowder. They also burn more slowly so that the internal pressure in the chamber is more of a constant to avoid damage to the firearm. Gunpowder 'explodes', so you get a spike of internal pressure.
As for the shape of the projectile, this has a huge effect. A ball isn't the most stable of projectiles, and the more powder you put behind it, the less barrel to travel down. With modern rifled breech-loaders, there are porportions that give far better stability and reduce drag.
Modern artillery already has ranges in excess of a hundred miles, and this technology allows a much more consistant acceleration, resulting in far more speed. Once the sound barrier is broken, the 'sonic boom' is a side-effect of drag, the drag isn't necessarily any more than what the projectile would experience per unit of distance sub-sonically.
It should be noted that some efforts have been made to make an orbital ranged gun.
The question is, what's 'reasonable force'? What's subdued? Just because somebody is on the floor doesn't mean that they can't get back up, or do damage from down there.
We get the idea that Britains aren't allowed to defend themselves from the cases we hear about people being prosecuted for doing things like using their cane to defend themselves.
Odds are, if I have to 'stop' somebody, they're going to either the hospital or the morgue.
I agree, I call vaporware until they can at least produce a prototype.
Well, how about the fact that making steel is 'nanotech', making it stainless even more so.
We've been fooling with this stuff for quite literally ages, it's just that we've now found the light switch... It's alot easier to work in the light.
At least were I am, the cattle aren't fed grain, they're either allowed to graze or fed hay. Grass is not edible for humans, so it's not the same thing. Grain is used, but as a suppliment, not as a sole diet.
As for what I said, it's an old tradition. How often have government subsidies been 'eliminated'? As production went up, you get some wierd things. Like the conditions for 'not planting'. That's to encourage letting land lay fallow, even though the politicians messed up the wording so it doesn't work for it's exact purpose. It was also indended to keep prices up, so you didn't have large numbers of farmers going out of business. It'd be like over-grazing. If you have a hundred deer in an area that can only support 80 through the winter, you might have 40 die of starvation, because the 20 extra ate for two months before dying of starvation, and took another 20 with them.
Small farmers are more threatened by taxes than a single bad year. They can take insurance out on their crops. If they have to take it, it won't cover their expected profit, but will definatly help if they lose their crop. On the other hand, they can have major problems with estate taxes, as they often run as sole(family) propiaterships. This means that when one dies, the family get's hit with a huge bill.
And your last statement is true. I remember reading that we could last for something like 2-5 years with zero food production, without starvation. We just wouldn't like the food choices.
It should be noted that as a rule I'm against subsidies of all varieties.
If your calibration method is to stick a object of known mass/weight on the scale, your altitude isn't going to matter as long as you aren't moving around too much.
And a scale measures weight whether it's in Kg or lbs.
I'm very much a 'live and let live' type of person, so I don't really understand the thoughts.
Look at materials about some of the really remote african and island tribes. Their language often marks only the tribe as 'human', or maybe 'people'.
Also, look at the old Phrenology research (skull bumps indicators of personality?). There were all sorts of 'studies' that showed blacks had smaller brains, more prone to violence, were not civilized, and much more. Add in religion and some creative quoting, and you'll keep society in line. You convince the logical with the studies, the religious/emotional with stories/religion, and the greedy, well, they have the profit motive.
Most ancient societies practiced slavery, whether it be for redemption of debts, captures from other tribes/countries, hereditary, or for crimes committed. Both the greeks and romans practiced slavery, and it was for people who were essentially the same race. The vikings had the 'dane-geld', essentially a fine for commision of a crime, and you'd essentially become a slave if you couldn't pay it. Heck, even murder was a fine for them. If you couldn't pay, you were given to the familiy for them to do what they wanted with you, including killing you.
My belief that it was a combination of greed and ignorance. You have the 'stands on the shoulders of giants' thing that's went on in the US. Many of the 'founding fathers' didn't necessarily agree with slavery, and they sowed the seeds for it's destruction in the constitution.
But how prevalent is it? The world, heck, just the United States, is big enough, with enough people, that you can get just about any statement if you poll enough. Heck, for extreme statements, your search is even easier as the really extreme people tend to be the loudest.
became more "enlightened" as to who was a person (sad, but true).
What's so sad about us growing up as a country? Is it sad that we weren't saints when we wrote the constitution?
We're not perfect, we will never be. All we can do is our best. Philosophical beliefs are some of the most difficult to change.
more "enlightened" as to who was a person (sad, but true).
We grew up, what's so sad about that? That we weren't saints right from the very beginning? As a country, we've had some major growing pains. More so than many countries.
The 18th was passed by a 'fad'. The tyrannical majority managed to get enough of a majority to pass that monstrosity. Then it was repealed when people regained their senses. That is another part of the constitution, and the government set up within, to make it so that a simple majority wouldn't be enough to inflict too much tyranny on the minorities.
But if somebody's going to the butcher, rather than the supermarket, chances are they're going for a more personal product than a supermarket's mass produced stuff.
As far as not being able to test the scales, how hard is it to have a conversion table for the scale weights?
Too much resources. I'd just go with a more complex on demand pay per view.
What with broadband, you go with a HD and a expiring download, that while it'll get cracked, so won't any other scheme.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. Depends on how you define 'threatening'. You'd have to go beyond words with me.
Life or Serious bodily harm. Somebody would have to threaten that, and with more than just words, in order for me to resort to personal defense. If I do, however, I'm going to do what I feel necessary to stop the threat. Overwhelming force is good for this.
So, if somebody who's twice as big as you comes up with a baseball bat and says "Don't worry, I'm only going to break both your legs", that you'd let him? Would you believe him? Or would you attempt to stop him, with possibly lethal results for you or him?