Liberal was perverted by the Republicans to become an insult.
No, "liberal" was perverted by the left wing long before. The Republicans couldn't have used it as an insult if they hadn't. Look at the self-named Liberal parties in other countries, Canada for example.
1.One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
That could as easily label anarchists. At one time it applied to Republicans (of the Reagan or Gingrich variety, not the current crop).
2.One who believes in free will.
Hmm, is there anyone who doesn't? I supposed there are a few die-hard Marxists or Leninist-Stalinists who believe that free will should be subjugated to the needs of the State, but I think they still believe that free will exists.
Geez, I say flat out that "I'm not offering any easy solutions, I'm not sure there are any easy ones." and you respond with "Oh no, your solution is quite easy". Oh? What fricking solution? Right, your strawman.
You put words in my mouth to offer up an "easy" solution which you then proceed to knock down. Do you think I don't know that? Why do you think I said there were no easy solutions? Hello?
In any case some of your assumptions are mistaken. For example: I'd have to just exit the stock market. Most other small investors would have to do the same. Big investors would clean up, being the only ones who could stick around. Well, no, if all the small investors bail, sucking a huge (in aggregate) amount of capital from the market, the big investors are going to hurt big time. Where do you think big investors make their money? Hint, it has something to do with lots of little investors, not one or two other big investors. (And yes, some of the money is from dividends from the companies themselves, but that's a relatively small proportion.)
Not that there's anything wrong with that as long as everyone is going in with their eyes open and equal access to information; you pays your money and you takes your chances.
A corporation exists to do things that are difficult or impossible for individuals to accomplish. It provides the legal structure for teamwork. Part of that is limiting the liability
There exist other structures for organizations that wish to accomplish things beyond the ability of an individual. The corporation is the only one that limits liability. QED.
Since you claim so many people do not understand it but use it anyway, then it seems that the definition has changed, and you are the one using the word incorrectly. Language changes. It is defined by the current meanings, not what it initially meant. If you are the only one using a particular old definition of a word, that doesn't make you better, that makes you wrong.
I don't know what your politics are, but you certainly argue like a left-winger.
I guess it shouldn't surprise me that the left wing is out to hijack the term "libertarian", they already did that with "liberal". That's always been a tactic on that side: since they can't win with reasoned, rational arguments (because they are not rational), they hijack the language and redefine the terms in an attempt to, if they can't win the argument, at least confuse the onlookers.
because so many factors (weight of airplane, temperature, wind, rigging of the control surfaces to name just a few) will affect the landing spot even for an autoland
See, now I know you don't know what you're talking about even if you are a pilot. (I'm a pilot too, but it's not my job).
The localizer and glideslope (let's skip MLS for now, although the same principle holds) are fixed with respect to the airfield. The autoland is tracking localizer and glidescope (and radar altimeter and yada yada). Weight, temperature, wind, and control surface rigging will all be factored out because the autopilot will make whatever corrections it needs to stay nailed to that approach. And if it's foggy out -- when autoland is primarily used -- there's not going to be much in the way of wind to worry about, is there?
Different aircraft types -- a Boeing 747 vs an Airbus say -- may well touch down in different spots because of the different geometry of the aircraft, but -- until they introduced dither in the system -- all 747s would touch down on each other's skid marks.
Technically you may be correct. However, said baby, being a US citizen, cannot be deported. While the INS -- ICE, now -- may be legally justified in separating an infant from its parents and kicking them out of the country, putting the infant in the care of social services, I doubt you can show many cases where it actually happens. And I'm sure you could find judges willing to pass injunctions against such deportations.
Microsoft have a policy of not employing software engineers over 30 - apparently, according to Bill Gates, a software engineers skills peak at age 26, and goes downhill from then on.
The real reason is that any older than that, and the engineers have enough real world experience to see what utter crap Microsoft's development practices really are, and not put up with them. MSFT needs to get them early so they can be properly indoctrinated. That they're also cheaper and willing to work longer hours (no family to spend time with) is bonus.
There's a reason that the address of Microsoft HQ is "One Microsoft Way", and not "street" or "boulevard" or such.
A corporation exists for one purpose: To earn money.
No, that's not quite right. A corporation exists to limit liability, specifically the liability of its owners for the deeds, misdeeds, or misadventures of the corporation. There are plenty of enterprises that exist to make money that are not corporations. And indeed, there are corporations that exist not to make money (e.g. non-profits).
This, in itself, isn't really a bad thing.
Well, yes it is. Oh, the making money part isn't inherently bad, it's the limitation on liability. Does funny things to the wiring in the brains of the board members and/or officers of the company. Because of this limitation on liability, the stockholders don't have much incentive to care how the company behaves, so long as it's profitable; worst case, they're out their investment, not facing personal impovrishment or jail time. Indeed, in most cases the real stockholders don't even know what they own, it's all indirect via investment funds, 401(k)s, and the like.
I'm not offering any easy solutions, I'm not sure there are any easy ones. But it's worth thinking about. Personal responsibility -- pay attention to what your 401(k) funds are doing, and vote whatever shares you personally own -- is a big part.
Category III C - A precision instrument approach and landing with no decision height and no runway visual range limitations. A Category III C system is capable of using an aircraft's autopilot to land the aircraft.
That's autoland. It'll even steer the aircraft down the runway, and brake if it's equipped with autobrake. Totally hands off. How else would you land in zero-zero fog?
Does anyone know if auto-landing is even something that is done with any regularity today?
All the time. It's called a Class IIIc ILS (Instrument Landing System), and the airport (and plane!) has to be equipped for it. See wikipedia's entry. It's more common in Europe, which tends towards more frequent fog at the airports.
Autoland had been in use on commercial aircraft for over thirty years. It's routinely used for landing at places like Heathrow which are frequently foggy. It's so accurate that they had to introduce some dither into it because the runways were starting to deteriorate what with landing gear smacking into the exact same spot landing after landing.
And cowards are often people who insult absent third parties and believe that somehow proves something about themselves. It does, but not what they think.
A true libertarian -- vs an anarchist -- knows that government does have some legitimate functions, national defense being prime amongst them. Secure borders are an aspect of national defense, and a fence is a hell of a lot cheaper than armed guards every dozen yards or so.
Too many self-styled libertarians seem to think that the term implies no government at all -- and then fawn worshipfully at the foot of corporations who decry "government interference". The fact is, without government, there would be no corporations.
Not to mention, your argument for it supposed that there are more more people willing to take things by force or fraud that are outside our borders than within.
Not at all, the number within are irrelevant to the fence; that's a situation to be solved by different means. Letting more in, even if the number is fewer than are already here, is a net loss of liberty. The fence should in no way constrain anyone from leaving, or from returning if they're from here and/or can demonstrate peaceable intentions, so it doesn't infringe the liberty of anyone within it.
Thus, by logic, I can claim that, since public education reduces the overall size of the government, free public education is a libertarian goal.
Only if you can raise money for that public education without taking it by force or threat of force (or fraud), ie compulsory taxes. Many people would willingly contribute to paying for that, so yes, that might well be a goal of some libertarians. Doesn't make it a libertarian goal, though.
Where the line is drawn is a huge variable,
And this is what I mean by not undestanding Ayn Rand.
I'm a libertarian so now I feel justified in supporting open borders. Having enough money to live in a gated community and owning machine guns is a private matter.
You call yourself a libertarian and you can't see the internal inconsistency in that position?
Sigh, what happened to the good old days when libertarians were people who had read and understood Ayn Rand? Our borders are our gated community, how else keep out people who are opposed to the libertarian ethic? (I.e., who want to take things from us by force or fraud.)
they needed aliens, action, bit of romance, bit of comedy,
Yep, sci-fi action romantic comedy, that's guaranteed a watch in my house. Makes sense in the public at large, too: sci-fi to interest the kids and the nerds (who are more likely to spend money on movies or DVDs than jocks are), action to interest the males, romance for the females, and comedy because nobody watches a downer movie for fun. (I oversimplify, but not by a lot.)
I think the ammo you're talking about is not jacketed in steel, but cased in steel.
I think you're right, that makes a lot more sense. Somehow I must have heard "cased" and thought "covered, ie jacketed".
Sheesh, with the number of times I had to swear to an officer that "I have no live rounds or empty cases in my possession, Sir!" when leaving the range (waaay back when), you'd think I'd know the difference. (I do.)
If you had a wormhole that allowed you to travel 1 lightyear in only 1 second, that doesn't mean you traveled faster than light. It means that the distance you traveled was much less than 1 lightyear.
Yup. That's more or less how the Alcubierre warp drive works -- warp space to make the distance in front of you shorter, and the distance behind you larger. Since the "speed" at which you can stretch or compress space itself is a rather meaningless concept, you get from point A to point B at an apparent speed faster than light. (Of course it's more complicated than that, and requires exotic matter. Van den Broek showed how you could do it with a volume of normal space inside a bubble of Alcubierre warped space, which reduces the energy requirements a lot.)
Conceptually I suppose an Alcubierre-Broek warp bubble is something like creating your wormhole but you pull the back end closed before the front end gets where it's going.;-)
Doesn't violate anything, in a similar way that tachyons with "imaginary rest mass" don't. Doesn't mean we know how to do it, though.
Some of the fluid evaporates quickly because of the vacuum, the rest is cooled by evaporative cooling to the freezing point. They've had problems in the past on Shuttle with ice buildup on waste dump ports.
The phenomenon has been known and routinely observed by astronauts since the 1960s.
Copper doesn't spark. Iron sparks -- try setting fire to a ball of steel wool sometime. I've heard that some kinds of cheap Eastern block ammo was jacketed in some kind of soft steel rather than copper (cheaper, but kind of rough on the gun barrel), that would spark. Mind, if the shooter's not using an AK-47 or something designed for such ammo, it's bogus.
Slashdot Mirror
Liberal was perverted by the Republicans to become an insult.
No, "liberal" was perverted by the left wing long before. The Republicans couldn't have used it as an insult if they hadn't. Look at the self-named Liberal parties in other countries, Canada for example.
1.One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
That could as easily label anarchists. At one time it applied to Republicans (of the Reagan or Gingrich variety, not the current crop).
2.One who believes in free will.
Hmm, is there anyone who doesn't? I supposed there are a few die-hard Marxists or Leninist-Stalinists who believe that free will should be subjugated to the needs of the State, but I think they still believe that free will exists.
Geez, I say flat out that "I'm not offering any easy solutions, I'm not sure there are any easy ones." and you respond with "Oh no, your solution is quite easy". Oh? What fricking solution? Right, your strawman.
You put words in my mouth to offer up an "easy" solution which you then proceed to knock down. Do you think I don't know that? Why do you think I said there were no easy solutions? Hello?
In any case some of your assumptions are mistaken. For example: I'd have to just exit the stock market. Most other small investors would have to do the same. Big investors would clean up, being the only ones who could stick around. Well, no, if all the small investors bail, sucking a huge (in aggregate) amount of capital from the market, the big investors are going to hurt big time. Where do you think big investors make their money? Hint, it has something to do with lots of little investors, not one or two other big investors. (And yes, some of the money is from dividends from the companies themselves, but that's a relatively small proportion.)
Not that there's anything wrong with that as long as everyone is going in with their eyes open and equal access to information; you pays your money and you takes your chances.
A corporation exists to do things that are difficult or impossible for individuals to accomplish. It provides the legal structure for teamwork. Part of that is limiting the liability
There exist other structures for organizations that wish to accomplish things beyond the ability of an individual. The corporation is the only one that limits liability. QED.
It may be cynical, but it's not misleading.
Since you claim so many people do not understand it but use it anyway, then it seems that the definition has changed, and you are the one using the word incorrectly. Language changes. It is defined by the current meanings, not what it initially meant. If you are the only one using a particular old definition of a word, that doesn't make you better, that makes you wrong.
I don't know what your politics are, but you certainly argue like a left-winger.
I guess it shouldn't surprise me that the left wing is out to hijack the term "libertarian", they already did that with "liberal". That's always been a tactic on that side: since they can't win with reasoned, rational arguments (because they are not rational), they hijack the language and redefine the terms in an attempt to, if they can't win the argument, at least confuse the onlookers.
because so many factors (weight of airplane, temperature, wind, rigging of the control surfaces to name just a few) will affect the landing spot even for an autoland
See, now I know you don't know what you're talking about even if you are a pilot. (I'm a pilot too, but it's not my job).
The localizer and glideslope (let's skip MLS for now, although the same principle holds) are fixed with respect to the airfield. The autoland is tracking localizer and glidescope (and radar altimeter and yada yada). Weight, temperature, wind, and control surface rigging will all be factored out because the autopilot will make whatever corrections it needs to stay nailed to that approach. And if it's foggy out -- when autoland is primarily used -- there's not going to be much in the way of wind to worry about, is there?
Different aircraft types -- a Boeing 747 vs an Airbus say -- may well touch down in different spots because of the different geometry of the aircraft, but -- until they introduced dither in the system -- all 747s would touch down on each other's skid marks.
Technically you may be correct. However, said baby, being a US citizen, cannot be deported. While the INS -- ICE, now -- may be legally justified in separating an infant from its parents and kicking them out of the country, putting the infant in the care of social services, I doubt you can show many cases where it actually happens. And I'm sure you could find judges willing to pass injunctions against such deportations.
It changes nothing legally.
"Legally", alas, rarely has much to do with it.
Microsoft have a policy of not employing software engineers over 30 - apparently, according to Bill Gates, a software engineers skills peak at age 26, and goes downhill from then on.
The real reason is that any older than that, and the engineers have enough real world experience to see what utter crap Microsoft's development practices really are, and not put up with them. MSFT needs to get them early so they can be properly indoctrinated. That they're also cheaper and willing to work longer hours (no family to spend time with) is bonus.
There's a reason that the address of Microsoft HQ is "One Microsoft Way", and not "street" or "boulevard" or such.
A corporation exists for one purpose: To earn money.
No, that's not quite right. A corporation exists to limit liability, specifically the liability of its owners for the deeds, misdeeds, or misadventures of the corporation. There are plenty of enterprises that exist to make money that are not corporations. And indeed, there are corporations that exist not to make money (e.g. non-profits).
This, in itself, isn't really a bad thing.
Well, yes it is. Oh, the making money part isn't inherently bad, it's the limitation on liability. Does funny things to the wiring in the brains of the board members and/or officers of the company. Because of this limitation on liability, the stockholders don't have much incentive to care how the company behaves, so long as it's profitable; worst case, they're out their investment, not facing personal impovrishment or jail time. Indeed, in most cases the real stockholders don't even know what they own, it's all indirect via investment funds, 401(k)s, and the like.
I'm not offering any easy solutions, I'm not sure there are any easy ones. But it's worth thinking about. Personal responsibility -- pay attention to what your 401(k) funds are doing, and vote whatever shares you personally own -- is a big part.
That's autoland. It'll even steer the aircraft down the runway, and brake if it's equipped with autobrake. Totally hands off. How else would you land in zero-zero fog?
Does anyone know if auto-landing is even something that is done with any regularity today?
All the time. It's called a Class IIIc ILS (Instrument Landing System), and the airport (and plane!) has to be equipped for it. See wikipedia's entry. It's more common in Europe, which tends towards more frequent fog at the airports.
Buy a clue, please.
Autoland had been in use on commercial aircraft for over thirty years. It's routinely used for landing at places like Heathrow which are frequently foggy. It's so accurate that they had to introduce some dither into it because the runways were starting to deteriorate what with landing gear smacking into the exact same spot landing after landing.
And cowards are often people who insult absent third parties and believe that somehow proves something about themselves. It does, but not what they think.
A true libertarian -- vs an anarchist -- knows that government does have some legitimate functions, national defense being prime amongst them. Secure borders are an aspect of national defense, and a fence is a hell of a lot cheaper than armed guards every dozen yards or so.
Too many self-styled libertarians seem to think that the term implies no government at all -- and then fawn worshipfully at the foot of corporations who decry "government interference". The fact is, without government, there would be no corporations.
Not to mention, your argument for it supposed that there are more more people willing to take things by force or fraud that are outside our borders than within.
Not at all, the number within are irrelevant to the fence; that's a situation to be solved by different means. Letting more in, even if the number is fewer than are already here, is a net loss of liberty. The fence should in no way constrain anyone from leaving, or from returning if they're from here and/or can demonstrate peaceable intentions, so it doesn't infringe the liberty of anyone within it.
Thus, by logic, I can claim that, since public education reduces the overall size of the government, free public education is a libertarian goal.
Only if you can raise money for that public education without taking it by force or threat of force (or fraud), ie compulsory taxes. Many people would willingly contribute to paying for that, so yes, that might well be a goal of some libertarians. Doesn't make it a libertarian goal, though.
Where the line is drawn is a huge variable,
And this is what I mean by not undestanding Ayn Rand.
I'm a libertarian so now I feel justified in supporting open borders. Having enough money to live in a gated community and owning machine guns is a private matter.
You call yourself a libertarian and you can't see the internal inconsistency in that position?
Sigh, what happened to the good old days when libertarians were people who had read and understood Ayn Rand? Our borders are our gated community, how else keep out people who are opposed to the libertarian ethic? (I.e., who want to take things from us by force or fraud.)
Sorry, had to be said.
Asteroids have dust too. Your point?
they needed aliens, action, bit of romance, bit of comedy,
Yep, sci-fi action romantic comedy, that's guaranteed a watch in my house. Makes sense in the public at large, too: sci-fi to interest the kids and the nerds (who are more likely to spend money on movies or DVDs than jocks are), action to interest the males, romance for the females, and comedy because nobody watches a downer movie for fun. (I oversimplify, but not by a lot.)
You won't freeze solid, no. You might well get frostbite.
Aha, so I wasn't totally wrong. Thanks.
;-)
Hmm, really powerful magnets as bullet deflectors?
I think the ammo you're talking about is not jacketed in steel, but cased in steel.
I think you're right, that makes a lot more sense. Somehow I must have heard "cased" and thought "covered, ie jacketed".
Sheesh, with the number of times I had to swear to an officer that "I have no live rounds or empty cases in my possession, Sir!" when leaving the range (waaay back when), you'd think I'd know the difference. (I do.)
Thanks for clarifying.
If you had a wormhole that allowed you to travel 1 lightyear in only 1 second, that doesn't mean you traveled faster than light. It means that the distance you traveled was much less than 1 lightyear.
;-)
Yup. That's more or less how the Alcubierre warp drive works -- warp space to make the distance in front of you shorter, and the distance behind you larger. Since the "speed" at which you can stretch or compress space itself is a rather meaningless concept, you get from point A to point B at an apparent speed faster than light. (Of course it's more complicated than that, and requires exotic matter. Van den Broek showed how you could do it with a volume of normal space inside a bubble of Alcubierre warped space, which reduces the energy requirements a lot.)
Conceptually I suppose an Alcubierre-Broek warp bubble is something like creating your wormhole but you pull the back end closed before the front end gets where it's going.
Doesn't violate anything, in a similar way that tachyons with "imaginary rest mass" don't. Doesn't mean we know how to do it, though.
Yeah it is. Think of parking spaces as "holes" and cars as electrons. It's a branch of semiconductor physics.
No air for cooling == no loss of heat.
Two words: evaporative cooling.
That's how the Space Activity Suit keeps you from overheating while working against its resistance.
That's technically accurate.
Some of the fluid evaporates quickly because of the vacuum, the rest is cooled by evaporative cooling to the freezing point. They've had problems in the past on Shuttle with ice buildup on waste dump ports.
The phenomenon has been known and routinely observed by astronauts since the 1960s.
Copper doesn't spark. Iron sparks -- try setting fire to a ball of steel wool sometime. I've heard that some kinds of cheap Eastern block ammo was jacketed in some kind of soft steel rather than copper (cheaper, but kind of rough on the gun barrel), that would spark. Mind, if the shooter's not using an AK-47 or something designed for such ammo, it's bogus.